Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

The Index of Jurisprudence

A Supplement to the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles

Summary Search Results...

Decision 76074      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The Commission issued a notice of disentitlement pursuant to ss. 9 and 11 of the Act and s. 30 of the Regulations to the Act for failing to prove he was unemployed. The claimant established a claim effective April 26, 2009. He had last worked as a part-time teacher from January 13, 2006 to April 24, 2009. He advised the Commission that she started to work on a contract basis. A copy of his contract clearly states “Contrat entrepreneur”, the claimant was an entrepreneur working out of his home four to six hours per day at $24.00 and was working without supervision or control from the school. He advised he was a self-employed as an English teacher and that his remuneration was sufficient for his need and that he was not seeking employment. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment
independent workers
availability for work
various activities
setting up a business

Decision 75760      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The Commission's decided not to pay him E.I. benefits because the claimant was self-employed and could not be considered unemployed. The claimant stated that he was spending all his time on his business, rather than looking for other work. He was the sole owner and had no one to help him. He spent more than 12 hours a day on his business. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment
independent workers
availability for work
various activities
setting up a business

Decision 74770      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant lost his employment due to his misconduct. Also, that it cannot pay him benefits from March 25, 2009 to March 30, 2009 because he was in a prison and cannot pay sickness from March 25 and March 26, 2009 because he had not proven that he would be available for work if he were not sick. According to the employer, the claimant was dismissed because he was in violation of two conditions of his Last Chance Agreement with the company namely being incarcerated and unavailable for work. The claimant was absent with a doctor's note for March 25 and 26, he was not available for work on March 29 and 30, he ould have returned to work on March 31, but he only contacted the employer on April 1st. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct
own misconduct
misconduct
absences from work

Decision 74396      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The medical evidence is clear that Ms. X, through no fault of her own, is not medically able to return to the labour market. She has received all of the sickness benefits that the legislation allows the Commission to provide to her. The Board concluded Ms. X "has not proven herself available for work". This is a reasonable decision based on the evidence, and it is for the Board of Referees to make such decisions. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 73822      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The claimant was denied benefits since it was determined she was not available for work. She was caring for her sick husband. The claimant was paid six weeks of compassionate care benefit until September 6, 2008. She then applied for sickness benefits effective September 7, 2008. The employer confirmed the claimant was on leave as of September 30, 2008 and did not know when she would be returning to work because of the illness of a close family member. She was simply not available for work during her period of incapacity because she was on an indefinite leave of absence and caring for her terminally ill husband when she became sick. Therefore, the claimant did not meet the entitlement conditions under the Act. The Commission's appeal is allowed.

Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
sickness benefits
otherwise available

Decision 72421      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The claimant and his wife were both employed. His mother-in-law cared for their two young children while they were at work but she returned to India. The claimant quit his job to care for the children. The Commission ruled that it could not pay him benefits (1) because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause and (2) because he had not proved his availability for employment. Claimants who establish just cause for leaving an employment still have to prove their availability for work in order to remain entitled to benefits. Difficulties in arranging childcare or the lack of childcare is itself evidence that one is not available for work. The appeal is dismissed.

Other Issue(s):
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
to take care the childrens

Decision 68162      Full Text

Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work
Not available and not otherwise available

Summary:
The claimant had repeatedly stated that she was not available to accept employment as she wanted to wait until she could return working for her husband in five months. It has been well established in the jurisprudence that more weight must be given to a claimant's initial statement than to one given later in response to a negative decision by the Commission. Even if the claimant had been able to establish that she might have been prevented from working due to a medical condition, she would still have had to establish that she would have been available for work were it not for that medical condition.