Decision 64646
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
The claimant had requested that the insurable hours of employment she accumulated in 2003 be allowed and applied to qualify her claim - but the Umpire and the BOR stated that the Act does not provide for an extension of the qualifying period for absence from Canada.
Decision 28281
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
Hospitalized 6 months during her stay in France. According to the CEIC, the claimant did not demonstrate that had it not been for his incapability he would otherwise be available for work, being outside of Canada. Based on CUB 16819 the Board rightfully refused the extension requested.
Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
applicability
Decision 26427
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
Claimant left his employment to engage in missionary work as a volunteer and left the country. On his return to Canada, he had only 2 insurable weeks in his qualifying period. Unfortunately, the statute does not provide for an extension of the qualifying period in such a case.
Decision 24218
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
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).
Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
applicability
Decision 18661
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
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.
Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
applicability
Decision 16819
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
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.
Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
applicability
Decision 14946
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
Following last day worked, claimant went out of Canada for 1 year with husband posted in Germany as member of the Canadian Armed Forces. She feels that she should be allowed an extension.
Decision 12235
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
The claimant suggests she was confined by the "institution of marriage" [to explain her stay in England for one year], but that is not the kind of institution meant by ss.18(2).
Decision 11223
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
Resigned her position to accompany husband to Australia. Returned 12 months later. Alleges unfairness. Not covered by the term "quarantine". Parliament's wisdom not to grant extensions to those absent from country.
Decision 09400
Full Text
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts
qualifying period
extension
out of canada
Summary:
Claimant resigned to follow husband overseas. Upon her return 4 years later, she contends she should have the same right as is given to one confined in a jail.
