Decision 76261
Full Text of Decision 76261
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
The claimant is denied benefits because of his absence from Canada pursuant to section 37 of the Employment Insurance Act and section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations. The claimant was outside Canada, in Germany from 21 NOV 2008 to 31 MAR 2009, visiting friends, family and enjoying skiing, biking and hunting. Benefits were denied resulting in an overpayment. The appeal by the claimant is denied by the Umpire.
Decision 26917
Full Text of Decision 26917
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Resides in Vancouver. Visiting Ottawa over Christmas. Sought work at both places during each day while in Ottawa. Resulted in 15 leads. The Board found that she was not available immediately but only upon her return to Vancouver. Held that there was ample evidence upon which to base such conclusion.
Decision 25551
Full Text of Decision 25551
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Left P.E.I. to visit her daughter in Ontario from 30-12 to 7-1. The Board recognized situations wherein UI was awarded for up to 7 days when extenuating circumstances existed. It concluded that she was absent for purely personal reasons and that it was doubtful that she could have arranged to return earlier.
Decision A-0219.93
Full Text of Decision A-0219.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
The Umpire listed 4 points (dealing with the steps taken and the possiblity to shorten the absence) to decide on the availability of a claimant on vacation. Standpoint disputed before the Federal Court. The Board is not legally bound by the Umpire's comments.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
instructions from umpire |
|
Decision 20728A
Full Text of Decision 20728A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0219.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
instructions from umpire |
|
Decision 24155
Full Text of Decision 24155
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Clearly, when a claimant is away from his usual place of work, on holiday, and admittedly not available for work, whether or not he is entitled to such a vacation under his union contract, he is unavailable for work under s. 14 during the period he takes as a holiday.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
waiting period |
|
|
Decision 20755
Full Text of Decision 20755
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Left Edmonton on vacation to B.C. from 21-12 to 3-1. Had friends looking in papers and UI office for work and was at anytime available to return. No evidence as to whether she was on the road or at a fixed address. I agree that her job search activitieswere insufficient.
Decision 20400
Full Text of Decision 20400
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Left Kamloops for Vancouver for a planned vacation with daughter for 5 days. Said she was in steady contact with husband who had remained behind and would have returned immediately if work available. No job search and not in constant contact with her employer for possible recall.
Decision 18439
Full Text of Decision 18439
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Left Alberta to be with his family in B.C. from 18 to 29-12. One must be available, and must be present in the area to accept job offers that may arise. One will be disentitled during an absence where no evidence of job search. The fact that plants wereshut down is irrelevant.
Decision 12546A
Full Text of Decision 12546A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Claimant left work to move with husband. It is admitted that she accompanied husband as they attempted to find work throughout the Province. To accept this would create intolerable situations for Commission to monitor. Just about everyone on holiday could say something similar.
Decision 16777
Full Text of Decision 16777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Vacation period pre-arranged with employer. There was an error of law by the Board. An employee who is on scheduled vacation is not available for work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Decision 16506
Full Text of Decision 16506
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Absent from Jasper, Alberta, for a 10-day visit to Saskatchewan. Argues she should only be penalized for the 2 days during which she would otherwise have been employed, the other 8 days she was not scheduled to work in any way. Para. 14(a) applies for each and every day.
Decision 14219
Full Text of Decision 14219
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
It is not disputed that claimant was absent on vacation from 6-6 to 13-6. He could not therefore qualify for benefits for that period.
Decision 14203
Full Text of Decision 14203
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Call forwarding service not sufficient. Passively toying with idea of accepting offer of employment not sufficient; requires dynamic desire to seek employment. Clear that someone on vacation is not on the labour market.
Decision 14169
Full Text of Decision 14169
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
On a fishing trip with husband for 2 weeks. She left a forwarding telephone number in the event of a job offer. Question of fact. No reviewable error in Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Decision 14136
Full Text of Decision 14136
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Claimant required by employer to take 2 weeks' vacation without pay. He had received vacation pay while on layoff many months before. Free to choose which weeks to take. The Board erred in equating 'forced vacation' as vacation. Really a constructive layoff with a recall date.
Decision 13853
Full Text of Decision 13853
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
Left Kitchener for Montreal from 10-8 (Sunday) to 18 (Monday). A holiday is inconsistent with a conscientious job search which he was required to make. Reason for being disentitlement from 11 to 15 only is that those are the weekdays in the period.
Decision 13730
Full Text of Decision 13730
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Summary:
After finding employment to start on 29-7, decided to take 1 week vacation starting on 22nd. Availability must be proved every day regardless of eventual return to work. UI is not a subsidy for vacationers.
Decision A0359.12
Full Text of Decision A0359.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
The claimant attended his father’s funeral in Morocco from May 23, 2011 to June 3, 2011. The Commission determined that the claimant was not eligible for benefits during this period because he had not taken any measures to make sure he could be reached. The FCA concluded that, in order to benefit from the exception in subsection 55(1) of the EI Regulations, the claimant was required to demonstrate that, at a minimum, he could be reached while outside Canada in the event of a job offer. In this case, the claimant had not taken any measures to make sure that he could be reached. Therefore, the Commission was justified in concluding that the claimant had not established his availability, and the Umpire erred in failing to intervene.
Decision 72198
Full Text of Decision 72198
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant was absent from the Country to visit a relative in Greece who was allegedly seriously sick. She was absent from Canada for a period exceeding seven days. The Commission conceded she was allowed a maximum of seven days for compassionate reasons since she was visiting her sick father and entitled. The claimant's mother argued strenuously the law is not fair. Seven days does not allow someone to travel to Greece, have a meaningful visit with the sick relative and return to Canada. She seeks relief from the strict application of the law. The Umpire explained that Parliament enacts the law and the officers are bound to apply it. The claimants appeal is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Decision A0304.07
Full Text of Decision A0304.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
During her benefit period, the claimant travelled out of Canada to visit her father who was terminally ill. She then extended her stay to assist with the funeral arrangements and attend the funeral. The Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled to benefits for the period she was out of the country. Before the Umpire, the Commission conceded that she should be entitled to benefits for the first 7 days of her absence. The Umpire found that she should be entitled to benefits for 14 days on the basis that the circumstances provided under ss. 55(1)(b) and 55(1)(d) EIR can be cumulated. The FCA held that the Umpire made no error of law.
Decision 58260
Full Text of Decision 58260
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
The claimant was not disentitled to benefits for the first 7 days she was absent from Canada to visit her gravely ill father. Afterwards, her father died while she was still absent. The Umpire agreed with the BOR's decision and stated that the legislation does not allow combining the reasons set out under section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations to permit entitlement for more than seven days.
Decision 57205
Full Text of Decision 57205
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant went to Connecticut to visit her ailing grandmother. The BOR found that the definition "immediate family" which does not include grandmother should include the grandmother in this case because of the culture existing in that family which has the grandmother as a close relative and allowed the appeal. Held by Umpire that the BOR erred in law. S. 54 of the EIR does not define the grandmother as "immediate family" and therefore the claimant was not covered by the exemption.
Decision 56948
Full Text of Decision 56948
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant left the country to see his sick aunt in California. Claimant states that his aunt is the only living adult he has left, that he grew up with and that he considers her as immediate family. Umpire held that an aunt cannot legally be considered within the frame of the EIA and EIR as a member of the "immediate family" even if the relationship between the claimant and his aunt was of a very special nature.
Decision 46785
Full Text of Decision 46785
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant moved in Saudi Arabia to accompany her husband who is in the military and posted in Ryadh as part of the Canadian diplomatic delegation. The BOR determined that since she lives in the Canadian diplomatic compound, it indicated that she lives on Canadian soil in Saudi Arabia and therefore she resides in Canada. Error in law ruled the umpire. Clear that she does not reside in Canada and therefore she is not entitled to receive benefits.
Decision 42230
Full Text of Decision 42230
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Clmt travelled out of Canada on two occasions to be with his wife who was posted temporarily in Chicago. Although clmt met the conditions of EIR 55(6)(a)(i)&(ii), the temporary residence was not in a state that is contiguous to Canada as required in that Regulation.
Decision 39369
Full Text of Decision 39369
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
The Act clearly states that unemployment insurance benefits are not paid to individuals who are not looking for work or who have left the country and intend to reside outside of the country.
Decision 34603A
Full Text of Decision 34603A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
While temporarily residing in Florida claimant decided to pursue employment in an occupation not under the Free Trade Act. He did not have a valid work permit, nor would one be issued upon finding work. A long visa process would then ensue, which could take 60 to 90 days. This is a personal condition which the claimant has set for his employment. He cannot be said to be available for work. He cannot received benefits by virtue fo s. 32 of the UI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
outside of canada |
|
|
Decision 34874
Full Text of Decision 34874
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Holding a foreign resident permit for the United States does not automatically mean that the exception to R. 54(4)(b) applies. Claimant must show his entitlement to benefits in order to receive them under the Agreement between Canada and the United States.
Decision 28452
Full Text of Decision 28452
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Ss. 54(4) quoted. There is no way that residence, even qualified by the word "temporary", can include brief stays in a motel or hotel while travelling to seek employment without any abandonment of regular residence in Canada, even though his search for work was in a contiguous state.
Decision 27413
Full Text of Decision 27413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant is precluded from receiving UI by reason of both 26(1), not referred to course, and 32(b). Parliament decided upon a very strict approach for persons outside of Canada. I do not see how it is open to an Umpire to attempt to interpret 32(b) in a broad and generous manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
applicability |
out of canada |
|
Decision 26376
Full Text of Decision 26376
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Para. 54(4)(a) quoted. It is agreed that Maple Valley is a 4 to 5-hour drive from Canada. Even granting that she was temporarily resident at her mother's residence in the state of Washington, a state contiguous to Canada, I would be stretching the legislation by saying she was available in Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 23424
Full Text of Decision 23424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant left Canada for the United Kingdom and on another occasion Austria in search of work. Job search not doubted. Case law examined. The Act simply does not permit exemption from the disqualification imposed by the clear terms of para. 32(b) on the basis of the quality of a claimant's job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 20711
Full Text of Decision 20711
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Ss.15(1) of the Charter imposes the obligation that persons who are similarly situated be treated equally. The distinction created under 32(b) affects claimants who are not in Canada, whether they are disabled or not. This is not based on a personal characteristic but on location.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 20608
Full Text of Decision 20608
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Member of a hockey team who left the country for five days to go to Georgia, USA, to participate in a tournament.
Decision 20348
Full Text of Decision 20348
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
The claimant stated that he was available at all times while he was outside of the country. The Board correctly noted that it was not concerned with availability; it was simply a question of applying the wording of the statute. Under s.32(b), the claimant is not eligible for UI.
Decision 19856
Full Text of Decision 19856
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Travelled through U.S. to find work. As the CEIC points out, the question goes beyond that of availability for work. Ss.32(b) clearly disentitles him. It lies beyond the jurisdiction of an Umpire to remedy any perceived injustice; that is a matter of legislative policy.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 18278
Full Text of Decision 18278
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant's husband stationed on a Canadian Armed Forces base in Baden, West Germany. Claimant says she is a Canadian citizen subject to Canadian laws while residing in Germany and feels she is unfairly treated. S.32 applies as written.
Decision 18231
Full Text of Decision 18231
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant spent 3 days in the States. He felt it was unfair to be disentitled for attending an interview for a position which was to be in Canada. Although his reasons for being out of Canada were legitimate, under the Act he is not entitled to receive UI for that period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 14619A
Full Text of Decision 14619A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
The insured spends 10 days in Mexico; she states that she did so in order to be interviewed for employment. Section 32 is clear: claimants outside Canada do not receive benefits.
Decision 15290
Full Text of Decision 15290
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant presented Commission with full details of his 2-week stay in Los Angeles including names of 20 firms contacted with a view to becoming their representative in Canada. Evidence that he was misinformed by Commission staff before leaving.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 15178
Full Text of Decision 15178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
No one doubts claimant actively seeking employment while in Nevada for 2 weeks at a conference which he regarded as main source of employment. In fact as a result, he did secure work. Claimant however realized that decision is inevitable under 32(b).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Decision 14344
Full Text of Decision 14344
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Absent 4 days to attend father's funeral in Florida. Para. 32(b) very clear and precise. Unfairness of a rigid provision. She had every justification for leaving a few days but no discretion allowed under legislation.
Decision 13200
Full Text of Decision 13200
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Para. 32(b). Visiting a father in India is not one of the special cases under the Act that allows a person to collect benefits while out of Canada.
Decision 12946
Full Text of Decision 12946
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Meaning of word "contiguous" in Reg. 54(1). Florida is not contiguous state. 6 weeks spent there to care for mother. Was not available for purposes of Reg. 54(4)(b). Being available in Canada is of no assistance.
Decision 12259
Full Text of Decision 12259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Would have gone to B.C. instead of Arizona if he had been told that his eligibility would be affected. Overpayment: $3000. As he did not fit within reg. 54, he was not entitled to benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 12206
Full Text of Decision 12206
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
He was residing in the home of his parents while in U.S. He says he has two residences (married and living in Quebec City). The residence of his parents is his temporary residence under 54(1) for the 3 weeks he was there searching for work.
Decision 12051
Full Text of Decision 12051
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Went to Germany to live with husband; no remedy under Reg. 54.
Decision 11144
Full Text of Decision 11144
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Claimant out of Canada for 3 weeks. He had informed the Commission and made efforts while abroad to find employment with a firm seeking to establish itself in Canada. Unfortunately, no escape under s.32.
Decision 10919
Full Text of Decision 10919
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Summary:
Insured tried to establish availability during 2 weeks spent in Bahamas. This is not a defence. S. 32 is precise. See CUB-10418 and OSTERMAN.
Decision 76505
Full Text of Decision 76505
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
Interstate |
Summary:
The claimant was absent from Canada from November 30 to December 3, 2009. His secondary residence is located not far from the Canada-US border. In fact, he claims this residence, owned by him for approximately 25 years, is a mere 10 minutes from the border. He was not exempted within the provisions of Regulation 55. Section 37 of the EI Act states that except as may otherwise be prescribed, a claimant is not entitled to receive benefits for any period during which the claimant is outside of Canada. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 68632
Full Text of Decision 68632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
Interstate |
Summary:
The claimant who held USA citizenship and had a residence in Valleyfield, Québec. He was granted 14 days to look for work in Arizona. He argued that he should have been allowed more time. He also argued that he should benefit under the Interstate rules between Canada and the USA. The claimant was held to be out of Canada and unavailable beyond the 14 days. He could not qualify for interstate benefits in the USA as he did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment as required by section 55 of the EIR. He has already received 28 weeks of benefit and the most he could have received had he applied for an interstate claim at the onset was 21 weeks.
Decision 69587
Full Text of Decision 69587
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
job search |
Summary:
The Board erred in fact and in law by allowing the claimant to benefit from 14 days period set out in section 55(1)(f) of the Regulations. There was no evidence to show that the claimant conducted a bona fide job search.
Decision 62322A
Full Text of Decision 62322A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
job search |
Summary:
The claimant had been excluded from benefits after his first 14 days outside Canada looking for a job. The Board of Referees granted an additional seven days consecutive to the initial 14 days, in accordance with exceptions set out in section 54(1)(f) of the Regulations. The Umpire stated that the wording of subsection 55(1) of the Regulations did not allow this interpretation. He concluded that the claimant had exhausted the time frame set out under one of the exceptions; it was inappropriate to extend the time frame set out under this reason for being outside Canada.
Decision 46498
Full Text of Decision 46498
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
job search |
Summary:
Claimant outside the country from 8-10 to 22-12-1998 to look for work. The Regulations allow for a claimant to be outside the country for a period of 14 days or less if the person is acting in good faith and looking for work. Claimant declared disentitled effective 26-10-1998. Decision upheld by Umpire.
Decision 70307
Full Text of Decision 70307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
outside Canada |
combination of 2 reasons |
Summary:
The claimant was outside the country from January 28th, 2006 to July 31st, 2006 to visit her mother who was ill and hospitalized. Her mother died during her visit. The Commission had determined that the claimant was entitled to seven days during her absence from Canada. The Board of Referees exceeded its jurisprudence in allowing the claimant to benefit from two of the provisions under subsection 55(1) of the Regulations. The legislation does not permit combining two reasons to extend an absence from Canada.
Decision 76471
Full Text of Decision 76471
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
The claimant was disentitled from receiving benefits while he was outside Canada under section 37 of the EI Act and section 55 of the EI Regulations. The claimant was away from May 31 to June 18, 2009, and did not report his absence. He said that he went to France to look for employment, but only provided evidence of a single, unsuccessful effort to find employment. He failed to show that he had received a formal job offer or that he had looked for employment elsewhere. Also, the claimant did not have a work permit. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 24997
Full Text of Decision 24997
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
I concede it is not appropriate for the majority of the Board to have concluded that, because he was not in his own area, he was automatically disentitled. It is a question of fact in all circumstances; the principle of law cannot be stated in such a simple way.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
union hiring hall |
|
Decision 21937
Full Text of Decision 21937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
It seems that the Board disqualified him because he was not physically present in the Kamloops area. This is not a proper application of the law. A person can be available for work and be looking for work, as claimant was, without necessarily being physically present in the area.
Decision 21886
Full Text of Decision 21886
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Laid off 26-10-90. Left B.C. on 25-1-91 to go Toronto for a visit. His children live there. Went to CEIC in Toronto to inform them. In constant touch with union hiring hall. Intended to fly back if job opening. Received a call 23-2, did return 24-2 to begin work 25-2.
Decision 17009
Full Text of Decision 17009
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Absent 12 days to visit sister. He says he was never advised he had to conduct a job search and maintains he could be contacted through father. Although mere absence is not determinative, one is properly disentitled when no evidence of job search while away.
Decision 16076
Full Text of Decision 16076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Claimant was absent from P.E.I. from 18-12 to 6-1 to visit her son in Petawawa, Ontario. She says air travel makes it possible for a person to come from there to P.E.I. very quickly and take advantage of any job offer. The Board properly applied the law.
Decision 15569
Full Text of Decision 15569
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Though there were 2 indications of job search, the Board found that the real reason for her trip from Toronto to B.C. was to visit friends. Job search incidental. Borderline case. I am greatly influenced by the fact that 7 months passed before letter ofdisentitlement issued.
Decision 15490
Full Text of Decision 15490
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Fisherwoman went from home in Quebec to Toronto 19-12 to 10-1, plane tickets paid by children, disentitled as she did not take steps to be advised of job offers. The Board decided that she could not come back before 10-1. Wrong issue. Availability not prejudiced by absence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision 15333
Full Text of Decision 15333
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
In layoff situations, mere absence from home not determinative: one is available if one keeps in regular touch with employer and willing to return. She was not on holiday but with husband in Kamloops and 2 employers knew how to reach her. Unique situation in Cassiar and no work.
Decision 14834
Full Text of Decision 14834
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Disentitled retroactive for 2 weeks because not available. There is no doubt that this is so. She was on UI in Toronto and, during these weeks, returned to Vancouver for personal family reasons (legal matters). She did not inform the Commission until much later.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
Decision 13364
Full Text of Decision 13364
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Moved from Brandon (Man.) to Slave Lake (Alb.) and stays 3 weeks in Whitecourt (Alb.) while moving. She quite properly assumed that she could not reasonably expect short-term work in Whitecourt.
Decision 10665A
Full Text of Decision 10665A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Teacher who left Toronto on 26-8 for 2 weeks to drive to N.B. Notice of interview not received until after return. No supply teaching available in any event until October. Unlikely she could find other employment. Job search in N.B. not serious. Trip for other purpose.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
Decision 12507
Full Text of Decision 12507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
UI is not there for financing holidays with one's family. Open to the Board to conclude that the real reason for claimant's visit in Quebec from B.C. (for one month) was to visit his family over Christmas and the 2 job applications not really serious.
Decision 11733
Full Text of Decision 11733
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
The Board based its decision on the fact only that claimant was absent from Toronto and thus not available. One does not necessarily follow from the other. Absence from one's place of residence is not conclusive of non-availability except if for holidays.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Decision 10594
Full Text of Decision 10594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Summary:
Claimant in Ontario who went 1 month to Newfoundland to visit sick brother. Alleges misinformation from CEIC; not a justification at law for keeping UI wrongly paid. No evidence of ability to learn of and accept job opportunity in Ontario or of job search while away.
Decision 72198
Full Text of Decision 72198
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
Claimant was absent from the Country to visit a relative in Greece who was allegedly seriously sick. She was absent from Canada for a period exceeding seven days. The Commission conceded she was allowed a maximum of seven days for compassionate reasons since she was visiting her sick father and entitled. The claimant's mother argued strenuously the law is not fair. Seven days does not allow someone to travel to Greece, have a meaningful visit with the sick relative and return to Canada. She seeks relief from the strict application of the law. The Umpire explained that Parliament enacts the law and the officers are bound to apply it. The claimants appeal is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Decision 53438
Full Text of Decision 53438
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
Claimant was outside the country from March 17 to April 2, 2001, to attend his brother's funeral. Benefits were allowed for the initial period of 7 consecutive days outside the country but not for the exceeding period. The Act is clear: the maximum amount of time a claimant can be out of the country is 7 consecutive days. Despite the sympathy aroused by this case, the Act must be respected and applied.
Decision 41200A
Full Text of Decision 41200A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
On May 4, 1997, the claimant went to the Philippines for two months to visit her sister who was seriously ill. According to the EIR, a claimant is not disentitled if she is outside Canada for a period of not more than seven consecutive days to visit a member of her immediate family who is seriously ill. Claimant disentitled for the whole period but the Commission conceded at the hearing that the disentitlement should have commenced a week later, i.e., from May 12, 1997.
Decision 20418
Full Text of Decision 20418
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
Was granted leave of absence to accompany husband to Toronto for a lung transplant operation. The program required her to be present at all times. She said it was not possible for her to be employed as she had to be with her chronically ill husband 24 hours a day.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
quarantine |
definition |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 19162
Full Text of Decision 19162
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
Claimant who was compelled to spend an extensive amount of time at the hospital working with the Rehabilitation Team to help her son improve his level of functioning following a car accident. I agree that ss.41(10), waiving requirements, is totally irrelevant here.
Decision 16046
Full Text of Decision 16046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
Claimant left Toronto to go to London, Ontario, as a result of the death of his mother there and was away for 2 weeks. He conceded he was not seeking employment but had a job offer been made, he might have come back sooner.
Decision 11733
Full Text of Decision 11733
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Summary:
Husband hospitalized in Newmarket. Claimant left Toronto for a week to be with him. One hour's travelling time. Informed her employer and left telephone number in case of recall. Willing to return immediately.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
