Summary of Issue: Disentitlement Not Automatic

Decision 40584 Full Text of Decision 40584

There is a presumption that a person enrolled in a course of full-time study is generally not available for work within the meaning of the Act. This presumption is capable of being rebutted by proof of exceptional circumstances. Evidence of a limited job search for evening and weekend employment is not proof of exceptional circumstances.

Decision 35921 Full Text of Decision 35921

Full-time students are usually considered unavailable for work. This presumption can be rebutted if the claimant is willing to abandon the course for a suitable employment, if he is conducting an active job search, or if his course schedule is flexible.

Decision 23546 Full Text of Decision 23546

I conclude that the Board erred in law when it concluded that existing jurisprudence excludes full-time students from receiving UI benefits and that the Board cannot render a decision based on a promise by the claimant that he would change his full-time status to part-time in the event of a job.

Decision 18696 Full Text of Decision 18696

It is clear that the Board applied the wrong test. It is not merely cases in which one has shown a pattern of work coincident with a full-time course which satisfies s.14. The test is always the overring consideration of whether the particular claimant was in fact available.

Decision 18337 Full Text of Decision 18337

Despite the general rule, attendance at a course does not in itself warrant disentitlement for not being available, since there is no automatic prohibition. The claimant may be able to rebut the presumption of unavailability. The usual tests of availability apply.

Decision 15325 Full Text of Decision 15325

It must be kept in mind that while 39(1) provides that one may be deemed available while attending course to which referred, this does not mean the converse is true. Persons attending courses not approved are not automatically not available.

Decision 15316 Full Text of Decision 15316

Attendance at a course is prima facie evidence of non-availability, but not automatic grounds for disentitlement. Factors to be examined: claimant's intention in case of job offer, amount of tuition, nature of course, purpose of taking course, job search.

Decision 14677 Full Text of Decision 14677

The Board agreed that he is attending a course to which not referred and therefore is disentitled. The issue was availability. The Board misdirected itself and erred in law by failing to consider the usual tests of availability. Non-referral is not an absolute prohibition. [p._7]

Decision 14434 Full Text of Decision 14434

Although the circumstances that will rebut the presumption of non-availability are rare, the Board is under an obligation to consider whether they exist in each case.

Decision 13426 Full Text of Decision 13426

Not to be automatically equated to non-availability. Attendance at a full-time course only raises a presumption that one is unavailable. It is not conclusive of the fact. It is open to the claimant to prove otherwise. This presumption is one which very few have discharged.

Decision 12941 Full Text of Decision 12941

Not sufficient to refer to presumption; must still examine specific details of case and whether history of employment at irregular hours. If so, must allow reasonable time.

Decision 12381 Full Text of Decision 12381

The Board may have thought that there was a legislative prohibition on the payment of UI to persons attending a full-time course. There is no such prohibition. Had Parliament so decided, it would have been a simple matter to provide for it.

Decision 12358 Full Text of Decision 12358

Attending a non-referred course does not automatically exclude from UI. Disentitlement follows not as a statutory consequence but only because one has not discharged the presumption of non-availability. What is raised is a presumption only that may be rebutted.

Decision 12313 Full Text of Decision 12313

S.39(1) does not deem those claimants who attend courses to which not referred to be unavailable. To be registered in a full-time course does not entirely eliminate the possibility that one could be available.

Decision 12145 Full Text of Decision 12145

Attendance at a full-time course may not in itself be sufficient to warrant a disentitlement, yet it nevertheless raises a presumption of non-availability and the onus is on the claimant to rebut this; disentitlement not automatic.

Decision 12108 Full Text of Decision 12108

Parliament proclaims that claimants who are referred to a course by the Commission are unquestionably available; Parliament never enacted that all others are never available.

Decision 11879 Full Text of Decision 11879

Attendance at a full-time course when claimant not referred to it raises a strong presumption of non-availability and the onus is on claimant to rebut this. The Act does not provide for an automatic disentitlement but a claimant must be available for work.

Decision 11281 Full Text of Decision 11281

The Board concluded that since claimant was taking a full-time course she was not available and that was the end of the matter. It failed to exercise its function in not considering a number of facts.

Decision 11075 Full Text of Decision 11075

Ss.26(1) does not define exhaustively the circumstances in which one may attend a course and still be available. It only gives one example. Here, a 3-week course not related to usual work and very small tuition are not such as to make claimant not available.