Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in saying that babysitting difficulties amounted to good cause, given the conclusion that claimant could not restrict her availability to the extent she had. If not available due to these difficulties, these cannot amount to goodcause. [p._15]
Claimant's failure to find a babysitter despite strong and reasonable efforts to do so could not in law constitute good cause for her refusal to apply for suitable employment within 40(1). [p.15]
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant disqualified and disentitled; she refused employment because she could not find a babysitter. Double penalty argument not raised.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
Summary:
Whether a person who is able to work only from 4:00 p.m. because she is unable to find a babysitter, should be considered available because she has made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter is at least partly a question of law. [p.12]
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law when he concluded that, notwithstanding claimant's restrictions as to hours, she was available because she had made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter. [p.14]
Availability cannot depend upon the particular reasons for the restrictions however these may evoke sympathetic concern. Otherwise, availability would be a completely varying requirement depending on the view taken in each case for the relative lack of it. [p.14]
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Summary:
Claimant's failure to find a babysitter despite strong and reasonable efforts to do so could not in law make her available for suitable employment within 14(a). [p.15]
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Whether a person who is able to work only from 4:00 p.m. because she is unable to find a babysitter, should be considered available because she has made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter is at least partly a question of law. [p.12]
The Umpire erred in law when he concluded that, notwithstanding claimant's restrictions as to hours, she was available because she had made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter. [p.14]
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in saying that babysitting difficulties amounted to good cause, given the conclusion that claimant could not restrict her availability to the extent she had. If not available due to these difficulties, these cannot amount to goodcause. [p._15]