Decision A-0686.93

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0686.93 Stolniuk Marie  Federal  English 1994-09-28
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Unanimous  No Commission  23391 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work  applicability  relation with refusal of work 

Summary:

Even though the Act does not provide a definition of the concept of availability, ss. 41(8) makes it clear that "suitable employment" is at the core of the concept and, according to s. 27, the suitability is to be assessed with reference to one's personal circumstances and duration of unemployment.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work  job search  warning before disentitlement 

Summary:

The personal circumstances of a claimant may have changed since she/he became unemployed and, indeed, the mere extension of the unemployment period may require a claimant to change his or her attitude and efforts. In all those cases, a warning by the Commission is obviously desirable and well-founded.**Parliament has clearly established in s. 14 that a claimant must be available in order to be entitled to benefits. It would be contradicting the will of Parliament to decide that, although claimant was definitely not available, she/he is nevertheless entitled to UI (due to lack of warning by CEIC).**I am quite aware that the Commission, in many cases, gives the claimant a warning that she/he must expand his or her job search. I never understood that a general policy of warning had been adopted for all cases of unavailability. There would be no justification whatsoever for such a general policy.**The failure of the Commission to follow its policy and send a warning to a claimant before giving effect to his or her unavailability cannot create a right under the UI Act. Once the Umpire was satisfied that the finding of unavailability was well-founded, he could do nothing but confirm the decision.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
teaching  availability for work  restriction  substitute 

Summary:

Part owner of a farm. Work on farm overlaps the beginning and the end of the school year. She could not put herself beyond any reasonable expectation of full-time work as a teacher and expect to receive UI. She had definitely not proven that she had complied with the requirements of the Act.


Date modified: