Summary of Issue: Availability Criteria

Decision 76468 Full Text of Decision 76468

The claimant was receiving regular unemployment benefits when he reported that he was starting a course. The course would lead him to a certification as a gas technician. On December 2, 2009, an agent obtained further information from the claimant. He indicated that he had 40 hours per week of training/course of instruction and 10 hours per week spent on studies. He indicated that he was not available for and capable of the same type of work and under the same condition as before. He also confirmed that he would not leave his training course if it conflicted with a full-time job. The claimant’s onus was to prove that he was available to accept work without any restriction. He clearly did not do at least for the period from November 16, 2009 to January 30, 2010. According to the Umpire, the BOR appled the wrong test. The claimant was required to show that he was available to work at any time without any conditions that would limit his availability. Evidence that he would be available to work at irregular hours does not meet that onus. The Umpire concluded that the BOR erred in law and on the facts. The Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire and the decision of the BOR is set aside.

Decision 71255 Full Text of Decision 71255

The claimant indicated that she was attending a full-time education program in Childhood Education. The courses were given from 8:20 am to 4:30 pm, from Monday to Friday. She also expected to have to devote another 10 to 15 hours per week on her course. Her intention was to devote her time to her course rather than look for work. She added that she was a student trying to get through her course and not having to worry about working part time to pay her bills and she could not live solely on her student loan. She stated that she was not available to work because of her studies. Subsequently, she indicated that she was available to work on a part-time basis but on weekends only, as school had to come first. It is well established in the jurisprudence that a person whose availability for employment is limited to part-time work outside his or her course schedule has not established availability for employment pursuant to subsection 18(a) of the Act. The Commission’s appeal is allowed.

Decision A0356.07 Full Text of Decision A0356.07

The Court referred to the three criteria in A-56-96 (Faucher) for assessing availability in situations such as in CUB 68476 : 1. a wish to return to the labour market as soon as suitable employment is offered; 2. an indication of this wish by efforts to find such suitable employment; and, 3. absence of personal conditions that unduly limit chances of returning to the labour market. The Court dismissed the Commission's appeal as the claimant had successfully rebutted the presumption of non-availability before the Board. The Commission limits the impact of this decision to the particular facts of the case.