Summary of Issue: Proof

Decision 75112 Full Text of Decision 75112

The claimant had established a claim for sickness benefits and received the full 15 weeks allowable. Then she was only able to work part time and was restricted for a period of some three months. The Board of Referees determined that she should be entitled to a reasonable time to return to normal working hours. Under the Act a person must show they are capable and available for work and unable to find suitable employment. In this case, the claimant was working to the full extent of what she could do during this three month period. There was no evidence that she was looking for other work and unable to find suitable employment. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision 40597 Full Text of Decision 40597

The case law has clearly established that the concept of availability implies a sincere desire not only to make oneself available, but also, and above all, to make a serious effort to find a job. In the present case, it seems that a single job search does not meet the requirements of the above-noted criterion.

Decision 33717 Full Text of Decision 33717

The beneficiary refuses to provide evidence of job search to certify his availability, though he maintains that he was always available to work. However, a mere statement to that effect is not sufficient. The statement must be accompanied by evidence that he has been looking for work, as required.

Decision 25057 Full Text of Decision 25057

One cannot be considered available when one admits not being available or, when the situation is such as to prevent one from accepting any work. The receipt of benefits depends on evidence that the claimant is available for work, not on the reason for being unavailable.

Decision 18065 Full Text of Decision 18065

The entitlement to benefit does not, alone, depend on the fact that one is available for work but rather on proving it. The proof of availability rests upon the claimant and a mere statement by the claimant standing alone (or with one job application) is insufficient.

Decision A-1049.88 Full Text of Decision A-1049.88

The Board erred in law. Availability is to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].

Decision 15799 Full Text of Decision 15799

Refer to: A-1049.88

Decision 14879 Full Text of Decision 14879

Obviously, the Board based its decision on a burden of proof that is too demanding. The insured does not have to prove her availability beyond all reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to do so by weight of evidence. Error in law.

Decision 14348 Full Text of Decision 14348

The claimant should keep in mind at all times that the onus is on him to look for work and to show that he is prepared to accept employment on reasonable terms. Not on the Commission to show that claimant has been offered work which he has refused to take.

Decision 13986 Full Text of Decision 13986

Up to claimant to prove availability, and not to Commission to establish that claimant was not available.

Decision 13266 Full Text of Decision 13266

Availability is not subject to proof beyond doubt as is case in criminal prosecutions, but to test of balance of probabilities.

Decision 11556 Full Text of Decision 11556

Claimant writes that the Board and CEIC have failed to prove that he was unavailable. The onus, however, is on claimant to prove that he was available and not on the CEIC or the Board to prove that he was unavailable.

Decision 10915 Full Text of Decision 10915

Board reversed burden of proof when it concluded that it had serious doubts as to insured's availability (and found for insured). I am therefore justified in reversing the decision.

Decision A-0298.74 Full Text of Decision A-0298.74

Entitlement to benefit is conditional not on being available and unable to find employment, but on proving this. Impossible to prove it if do not prove that efforts were made to find work.

Decision A-1437.92 Full Text of Decision A-1437.92

The Board's decision seems to be based, not on the refusal to give a retroactive effect to evidence which covers an earlier period, but on the conviction that credibility should be given to the claimant's statement that she was now willing (new attitude) to accept an employment. Obviously the claimant's counsel is right in saying that proof of availability for an earlier period could and even should normally make it possible to reestablish eligibility that is diputed by the Commission on the basis that the claimant was not unavailable.

Decision 21799 Full Text of Decision 21799

Refer to: A-1437.92