Summary of Issue: Personal Reasons

Decision 76471 Full Text of Decision 76471

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

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.

Decision 21937 Full Text of Decision 21937

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Decision 15333 Full Text of Decision 15333

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

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.

Decision 13364 Full Text of Decision 13364

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

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.

Decision 12507 Full Text of Decision 12507

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

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.

Decision 10594 Full Text of Decision 10594

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.