Summary of Issue: Good Reasons

Decision A-0388.04 Full Text of Decision A-0388.04

The Commission found that the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment, but, since she was not available for full-time employment she could not receive benefits. The Umpire concluded that since the claimant had just cause pursuant to subsection 29(c) that the availability requirement of section 18 of the Act could not be applied to disqualify her from receiving benefits. The Court concluded that the Umpire failed to apply the jurisprudence and that the requirement of availability cannot be waved on the ground that the claimant had good cause for leaving her employment.

Decision 58551A Full Text of Decision 58551A

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0388.04

Decision 23243 Full Text of Decision 23243

Refer to: A-0652.93

Decision A-0652.93 Full Text of Decision A-0652.93

Availability is a statutory requirement pursuant to ss.14(a) and, hence, cannot be ignored by Umpires, whatever the extenuating circumstances may be. That it may appear reasonable for a claimant not to seek work is insufficient reason to ignore the law.

Decision 17065 Full Text of Decision 17065

As unfortunate as it seems, considering that the claimant had legitimate reasons for not being available, the fact remains that she was not, as required under 14(a). She made every effort to obtain transportation but was unable to do so. Therefore, not available.

Decision 14054 Full Text of Decision 14054

The fact that this conduct was dictated by health, age and in order to live with her son, does not alter the fact that she effectively withdrew herself from the labour market where she might have been employable.

Decision 12871A Full Text of Decision 12871A

Claimant did not return to work after confinement as she had to care for the baby. The Board was not at liberty to decide that her conduct was reasonable in staying home. One must be available for work. She made it quite clear she was not.

Decision 13115 Full Text of Decision 13115

The question of availability is an objective one. It cannot depend upon the particular reasons for the restrictions, however much these may evoke sympathetic concern.

Decision A-0613.81 Full Text of Decision A-0613.81

The Umpire erred in law when he concluded that, notwithstanding claimant's restrictions as to hours, she was available because she had made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter. [p.14] Availability cannot depend upon the particular reasons for the restrictions however these may evoke sympathetic concern. Otherwise, availability would be a completely varying requirement depending on the view taken in each case for the relative lack of it. [p.14]