Summary of Issue: Imprisonment

Decision 72510 Full Text of Decision 72510

The Commission determined that the claimant would not have been available for work if he had not been sick because he was incarcerated. The Commission imposed an indefinite disentitlement. The evidence in this case establishes that, following his incarceration, the claimant was released on parole, on the stipulation that he stay at a residential facility until the officials in charge of the facility decide otherwise. The claimant's probation officer indicated that, if the claimant left the facility without permission, he would be sent back to prison. The BoR reviewed the evidence and found that the claimant had not established availability for work and that an inmate of a prison or similar institution is disqualified from Employment Insurance benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 45899 Full Text of Decision 45899

Claimant asserted that, because he had chosen to be confined to a residential drug addiction treatment centre, he was not subject to par. 32(a) of the Act regarding inmates. Claim dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant was required to be at the residential drug addiction treatment centre 24 hours a day. The court order even stated that he would be taken into custody if he left the residential centre. Claimant was not in a position to look for work or hold any type of job. FCA decision in Whiffen (A-1472.92) cited.

Decision 40235 Full Text of Decision 40235

Clmt, a prison inmate, alleged that he had not made false statements in declaring on his cards that he was available for work. To receive benefits, a clmt must first qualify and then be available and actively seeking employment. Clmt was well aware that even if he was willing and perhaps physically able to work, he could not take on work at that time.

Decision 34344 Full Text of Decision 34344

Inmate at a Correctional Institution where policy was to release an inmate on day parole or leave if called back to work. However, until a claimant is called back by the employer, he remains incarcerated and can not be considered available for work.

Decision 24271 Full Text of Decision 24271

Claimant says he was eligible for pre-release and therefore available. Section 55 provides that an inmate granted parole would not be disentitled. Claimant did not apply for and was not granted a parole of any kind. There is a clear distinction between being eligible for and being granted pre-release.

Decision 17123 Full Text of Decision 17123

Reg. 55 provides an exception to the general rule, so it must be given strict interpretation. Not for a Board to decide that an inmate who has served one third of his sentence is eligible for work. The certificate of availability must come from the dulyconstituted authorities.

Decision 11883 Full Text of Decision 11883

Opted for 15 days in jail rather than pay fine. Had a job become available, she would have either paid the fine or request a temporary absence pass. One cannot assume it would have been granted. Physically impossible to conduct job search.

Decision A-1132.84 Full Text of Decision A-1132.84

Meaning of "inmate" examined in the light of s.32 and reg. 55. Reg. 55 exempts inmates who have been physically released from prison for certain purposes. This broader concept applies as well to ss.7(2). [p. 11-12]

Decision 10689 Full Text of Decision 10689

Disentitlement under 32(a) based on same principle as 32(b). Must not be seen as penalty for inmate, any more than for absence from country. Rule based on effective lack of availability. Meaning of "détenu" and "inmate" considered; not perfectly equivalent. Ejusdem generis rule applicable to "similar institution". Admission to psychiatric institute for diagnosis and not punishment. He is inmate, but not in prison. Accused of theft and admitted to psychiatric institute in Montreal for 6 weeks to assess fitness to stand trial. Not a prison. Diagnosis rather than punishment.

Decision A-0869.81 Full Text of Decision A-0869.81

Letter submitted showing claimant was granted temporary absence to work with a specific company but, when company was contacted, there was a layoff. We do not think that this letter is capable of being regarded as evidence of a temporary absence within reg. 55. The availability of a temporary absence permit to work is not equivalent to a "temporary absence". Reg. 55 contemplates that the inmate has been granted temporary absence and is not disabled by his incarceration from looking for work. Spent 3 weeks at Burtch Correctional Centre. Case allowed by Board as claimant involved in mass layoff and job search not required. Overturned by Umpire: no evidence that temporary absence had been granted. In our view, the Umpire's decision was correct.

Decision 63995 Full Text of Decision 63995

The claimant worked for an anti-poverty organization as part of her community service to repay outstanding fines. Since she was required to perform community service, she could not have been available for other work.