Decision A-0664.99      Full Text


Summary:
Last day worked: 21-08-98. Benefit period would have been established effective 23-08-98 if the claimant had accumulated the necessary number of insurable hours. Claimant had only 544 hours, whereas 560 hours were needed. Claimant asked to have his benefit period start one week earlier (week of interruption of earnings), to have his qualifying period extended by a week, and to allow him to benefit from the insurable hours accumulated during his last week of work. Request denied by the Commission, but allowed by the Umpire who was of the opinion that an extension would favour the claimant and the last part should not be cut off.The Court allowed the Commission's request for a judicial review after the claimant gave his consent.

---

Decision 45755      Full Text


Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0664.99

---

Decision 29352      Full Text


Summary:
The Board erred. Claimant's qualifying period would normally run from 1-91 to 1-92. He was in prison between 11-89 to 6-90, a period entirely outside the qualifying period. This period of confinement cannot, under 7(2), be considered as a reason for extending the qualifying period. The 52 weeks that immediately precede claimant's qualifying period are not subject to extension because of periods of incarceration. He had no insurable weeks during that period. Thus, under 6(4), claimant is to be considered a new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force.

---

Decision 28281      Full Text


Summary:
Hospitalized 6 months during his stay in France. According to the CEIC, the claimant did not demonstrate that had it not been for his incapability he would otherwise have been available for work, being outside of Canada. Based on CUB 16819 the Board rightfully refused the extension requested.

---

Decision 24218      Full Text


Summary:
While on a 3-month vacation in Portugal, claimant was diagnosed as having cancer. Surgery and chemo-therapy delayed her return to Canada for 6 months. Para. 7(2)(a) is inapplicable, says the Commission, because she was on vacation when she became incapable of work. I do not read this in 7(2)(a).

---

Decision A-0496.91      Full Text


Summary:
Application for benefits having been made 19-5-87, his qualifying period which could be extended under para. 7(3) was the 52-week period preceding 17-5-87.

---

Decision 19613      Full Text


Summary:
Refer to: A-0496.91

---

Decision 18661      Full Text


Summary:
Left for Ecuador in 3-88. Due to return 7-88 but fell sick. Return ticket not submitted but medical evidence on file. The Board did not err in finding that she failed to establish that the sole reason she was not employed in insurable employment in Canada was illness.

---

Decision 17606      Full Text


Summary:
There must be evidence that claimant would have been working or looking for work if he had not taken ill or suffered an injury. He was sick and in receipt of an indemnity from 3-86 to 4-87. He then retired and was therefore not available for work duringhis qualifying period. When a claimant would have not been in insurable employment in any event, whether or not a ground for extension had arisen, no extension may be granted (CUB 9611).

---

Decision 16819      Full Text


Summary:
Left employment in Canada 31-7-86 to move to Australia where she worked until hospitalized in 11-86. Returned to Canada in 9-87. Extension possible under ss.7(2) if one not employed in insurable employment due to illness. The crucial expression here is insurable employment.

---

Decision 13184      Full Text


Summary:
Why was her employment not insurable? Had to stop attending courses because she was not capable of attending, as a result of pregnancy. Extension granted. [This point of law seems to have gone unnoticed]

---

Decision 12113      Full Text


Summary:
Period of incapacity not falling within claimant's qualifying period and accordingly no extension can be granted. [p. 3]

---

Decision 11636      Full Text


Summary:
These exceptions contained in ss.18(2) include illness, confinement in jail, attending a course or being in receipt of total temporary workers' compensation payments. The claimant's case does not fit under any of those categories.

---