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 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 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 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.
