Summary of Issue: On Vacation

Decision 76261 Full Text of Decision 76261

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

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

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

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.

Decision 20728A Full Text of Decision 20728A

Refer to: A-0219.93

Decision 24155 Full Text of Decision 24155

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.

Decision 20755 Full Text of Decision 20755

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

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

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

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

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.

Decision 16506 Full Text of Decision 16506

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

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

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

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.

Decision 14136 Full Text of Decision 14136

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

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

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.