Summary of Issue: Out Of Canada

Decision A0083.12 Full Text of Decision A0083.12

The claimant attended tradeshows in New Jersey and Florida while receiving regular EI benefits. The Commission determined that the claimant could not be paid EI regular benefits for the two periods when he was outside Canada. The FCA concluded that the New Jersey and the Florida are not states contiguous to Canada and that the claimant did not meet the requirements of subsection 55(6) (a) of the EIR.

Decision 77145 Full Text of Decision 77145

The Claimant disputes the Commission’s decision to disentitle him from benefits pursuant to s. 37 of the Act and s. 55 of the Regulations as he was absent from Canada from April 18 to May 10, 2008. The claimant claims he was outside of Canada dealing with a family emergency and during this period was actively seeking employment. He could receive no benefit except for seven days as provided in the Act, for attendance to a member of the family, ill outside Canada The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire

Decision 77224 Full Text of Decision 77224

The Commission was informed that, during the claimant’s benefit period, from January 8, 2009 to February 16, 2009 as well as from March 9 to March 30, 2009, the claimant had been out of Canada. The Commission determined that the claimant was entitled to one period of seven consecutive days during each period of her absences as she had travelled to visit members of her family who were ill. This decision resulted in an overpayment of $3,039.00. She noted that her family lives in the Unites States and that this should not disadvantage her from visiting and supporting family members who are ill. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the umpire.

Decision 76280 Full Text of Decision 76280

The claimant was out of the country when he traveled from Calgary to Halifax but did so by traveling through the United States from May 31 to June 7, 2010. The law is quite clear that the claimant is not entitled to receive benefits while he is outside of Canada pursuant to s. 37 of the Act. The only exceptions would be found in Regulation 55. The claimant does not fall within those regulations. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision 71384 Full Text of Decision 71384

The claimant had been out of Canada from September 13, 2006 until October 26, 2006. The Commission imposed a disentitlement for the period because the claimant had been out of the country. The claimant did not contest having been out of the country for the period stated above. He explained that he had travelled to London, England to pursue employment opportunities. While in England, he had continued to look for employment in Canada via the internet. The claimant added that while he was in England, his father became ill and he delayed his return to Canada to care for his father. The Commission conceded that the claimant could be entitled to 14 days of benefits to conduct a bona fide job search pursuant to paragraph 55(1)(f) of the Employment Insurance Regulations. He submitted that the claimant could not benefit from a second exception pursuant to subsection 55(1) of the Regulations. The Commission noted that there was no relationship between paragraphs 55(1)(d) and (f) of the Regulations. The claimant's appeal from the Commission's decision is allowed to the extent that he is entitled to 14 days of benefits pursuant to paragraph 55(1)(f) of the Employment Insurance Regulations. The Commission's decision is otherwise confirmed.

Decision A0003.13 Full Text of Decision A0003.13

On July 21, 2011, the claimant crossed the US border around 10:50 am and returned across the border into Canada around 9:30 pm the next day, July 22. The Commission refused to pay her benefits for July 21 and 22. The FCA agreed that the claimant was disentitled to receive benefits for only one day. The FCA determined that the paragraph 37(b) of the EIA is the period, expressed in complete, whole days, during which the claimant was outside of Canada. According to the FCA, a complete, whole day did not necessarily mean a calendar day. It could correspond to a continuous 24 hours period that straddles two calendar days. The FCA concluded that the claimant was outside of Canada for one complete, whole day, and that she was not entitled to receive benefits for only one day under paragraph 37(b) of the EIA.

Decision 73032 Full Text of Decision 73032

The claimant had apparently gone to Kentucky where she had attended University and played golf. The claimant was visiting Kentucky for a short time in November, 2005 to visit friends and went there again in December of 2005 and continued to stay there until the 5th of January to celebrate New Year's, and then late January went to Kentucky to attend a wedding. As she was a professional golfer, she went there with the intent of exploring possible work opportunities for the future. The claimant did not prove that she was outside of Canada at any golf interview, to conduct a bona fide job search or that she had appointments in respect of her profession within the meaning of the legislation. Appeal is dismissed.

Decision A0132.12 Full Text of Decision A0132.12

The Commission disentitled the claimant from her EI benefits for a period of one week when she went to Arizona (USA) to visit her son. Before the BOR, the claimant stated that before travelling to the USA, she had arranged a meeting with the Director of sales for the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team. She was looking for the possibility of some business arrangement between the Coyotes and her travel company. The question of the weight to be given to the original statement is a question of fact left to the appreciation of the BOR. There is no binding legal rule to the effect that the original statement should have more weight than evidence given orally before the BOR. The BOR found as fact that the claimant had travelled to pursue a pre-arranged employment opportunity. The Umpire dismissed the Commission’s appeal, finding that her travel fell within the exception of paragraph 55(1)(e) of the EI Regulations. The FCA dismissed the application for judicial review in accepting the finding of fact made by the BOR.

Decision A0068.12 Full Text of Decision A0068.12

The Commission had been informed that the claimant was outside of the country while he was receiving benefits. The claimant informed the Commission that he was looking for work in Haiti. The Commission allowed the claimant to receive benefits for that period pursuant to paragraph 55(1)(f) of the Regulations. The claimant was not eligible to receive benefits for the remainder of his stay in Haiti. Both the BOR and the Umpire concluded that the evidence submitted by the claimant did not demonstrate that he had to extend his stay beyond the period of 14 days already granted to conduct a bona fide job search. The FCA concluded that the claimant was ineligible for benefits for the duration of his stay outside of the country in which he met none of the exceptions under section 55 of the EIR. Application for judicial review dismissed.

Decision 77010 Full Text of Decision 77010

The claimant submitted that, from November 18 to December 4, 2009, he was in Romania, his country of origin, to receive dental treatment. He indicated that the dentist in Canada wanted to extract his tooth and that the dentist in Romania was able to save his tooth at a lower price. The Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled to receive EI benefits for that period because he was outside the country to undergo dental treatment that he could have received in Canada. Consequently, the Commission imposed a disentitlement for that period. The claimant appealed from the Commission's decision. He submitted that the dental treatment, without tooth extraction, was not available in Canada. The general rule under the legislation is that claimants who are not in Canada are not entitled to receive benefits. However, Regulations 55(1)(a) provides an exemption from this general rule whereby a claimant who is outside Canada receiving medical treatment not readily or immediately available in the claimant's area of residence in Canada qualifies to receive benefits. The only difference was the manner in which it was done. The claimant made the personal choice to undergo treatment in Romania because he wanted to avoid an extraction. Consequently, the claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 75257 Full Text of Decision 75257

The claimant informed the Commission that she had been on holidays outside Canada from September 27 to October 4, 2008 and from October 9 to 13, 2008. The Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled to receive EI benefits from September 29 to October 13, 2008 because she was outside Canada on holidays. The claimant appealed from the Commission's decision. She argued that she had been outside Canada not on holidays, but as the executor for the estate of her daughter, who passed away. The BOR is of the opinion that the doctor's recommendation concerning the trip to Disney, where the claimant stayed from October 9 to 13, 2008, was for the purpose of accompanying a family member for strictly therapeutic goals. The BOR finds that the claimant should not be disentitled from receiving benefits for this period. The BOR allows the appeal in part, that is, for the period from October 9 to 13, 2008. On appeal, the commission argued that the claimant's situation does not fall within any of the exceptions set out in section 55 of the EIR. The Umpire agree with the Commission and find that the BOR erred in fact and in law. Consequently, the Commission's appeal is allowed and the BOR's decision is rescinded.

Decision 71687 Full Text of Decision 71687

The Commission found that the claimant was out of Canada during his benefit period, from December 27, 2006 to January 13, 2007. The Commission found that the claimant was not eligible to receive benefits during the period in which he was out of Canada. The claimant indicated that he was out of the country to participate in a religious pilgrimage. He submitted that, since he went on the trip to fulfill a religious obligation, he should have been able to continue receiving benefits during his absence. He submitted that the Commission's decision was abusive and violated the right granted to him by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to practise his religion. The appeal is dismissed.