Decision 26880
Full Text of Decision 26880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0134.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
reasonable period of time |
|
Decision A-0134.95
Full Text of Decision A-0134.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
While the umpire can only confirm the Board's decision, he cannot simultaneously recognize that the claimant has a right to benefits because prior notice of the consequences of his disentitlement had not been given. Confirms the position of the FCA in Stolniuk (A-686-93).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
reasonable period of time |
|
Decision A-0686.93
Full Text of Decision A-0686.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
The personal circumstances of a claimant may have changed since she/he became unemployed and, indeed, the mere extension of the unemployment period may require a claimant to change his or her attitude and efforts. In all those cases, a warning by the Commission is obviously desirable and well-founded.**Parliament has clearly established in s. 14 that a claimant must be available in order to be entitled to benefits. It would be contradicting the will of Parliament to decide that, although claimant was definitely not available, she/he is nevertheless entitled to UI (due to lack of warning by CEIC).**I am quite aware that the Commission, in many cases, gives the claimant a warning that she/he must expand his or her job search. I never understood that a general policy of warning had been adopted for all cases of unavailability. There would be no justification whatsoever for such a general policy.**The failure of the Commission to follow its policy and send a warning to a claimant before giving effect to his or her unavailability cannot create a right under the UI Act. Once the Umpire was satisfied that the finding of unavailability was well-founded, he could do nothing but confirm the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
restriction |
substitute |
Decision 23391
Full Text of Decision 23391
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0686.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
restriction |
substitute |
Decision 23426
Full Text of Decision 23426
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant disentitled upon filing her claim. In my view, the failure of the Board to consider the Commission's responsibility to warn the claimant if it considered her job search too narrow before deciding she was disentitled to benefits constitutes an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 22834
Full Text of Decision 22834
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
He must not only be given a reasonable amount of time to find work before being disentitled (pattern of work while studying), but he must also be given reasonable notice that if he does not expand his hours of availability, his benefit will terminate. Retroactivity cancelled plus 4 weeks allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Decision 20316
Full Text of Decision 20316
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Jurisprudence is not uniform on this matter of notice. One recognizes the "fairness" doctrine whereas the other finds that "nothing in the Act forces CEIC to do it". I am of the opinion that the principles of natural justice and equity compel this notice.
Work history of 7 years part-time work; 5-month period granted to search for similar job. Found not eligible on 29-3 retroactively to 5-3. Should have been informed beforehand that the restrictions were not acceptable any further; a 4-week delay is granted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
|
Decision 19338
Full Text of Decision 19338
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
CUB 15771 states that this warning is not required by the Act, but by simple principles of fairness: if the conditions entitling one to benefits are going to change, one is entitled to know and be given a reasonable opportunity to bring himself within the new conditions.
Decision 19225
Full Text of Decision 19225
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
A distinction must be made between the claimant who, having unsuccessfully searched for a job in his particular sphere of competence for a number of weeks, must broaden the scope of his search, and a claimant who places restrictions considered unacceptable at the beginning of his benefit claim.
Decision 19058
Full Text of Decision 19058
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Student with history of work. True that his claim had been maintained for an extended period (40 weeks). That does not mean that when it is finally concluded that restrictions are no longer reasonable the Commission may dispense with notice before UI isterminated. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Decision 18330
Full Text of Decision 18330
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
It may be noted that a warning to the claimant that benefits may be suspended because of non-availability is not mandatory in cases where the claimant has admitted to not actively searching for employment, according to CUB 17482.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 18205
Full Text of Decision 18205
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Left when part-time job became full-time. Still restricts herself to part-time after 7 months. The Board did not give adequate attention to the legal requirement now recognized in jurisprudence. A period of 4 weeks following the Notice of Disentitlementwould have been adequate.
Decision 18180
Full Text of Decision 18180
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
If properly disentitled because she moved to Tumbler Ridge, a warning would serve no purpose and I cannot think it would be necessary, because the only way of re-entitling herself to UI would be for her to move out of there. This hardly seems a likely course of action for her.
Decision 18130
Full Text of Decision 18130
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
The issue for the Board to decide is whether she had been given any reasonable warning that she must broaden her job search. It may then wish to consider, since the notice of 27-2-89 must at least be regarded as a warning, what period thereafter would be reasonable to allow.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Decision 18112
Full Text of Decision 18112
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Disentitlement made effective 29-8, the date of the notice, rather than 7-8. It is now well established that claimants who are in receipt of benefits should receive a warning when they have persisted in restricting their job search for too long.
Decision 18088
Full Text of Decision 18088
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
If this was the basis of the decision, i.e. that claimant must seek full-time work, it is unfair to her to impose such a condition without notice and retroactively, after she has been on UI with approval of the CEIC for sometime. Entitled to prior notice and time to adjust.
Decision 18042
Full Text of Decision 18042
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
There is ample jurisprudence that, where the CEIC has paid benefits to one for a period of time in acceptance of the conditions which she was placing on her job searches, that she should be warned that those conditions are no longer acceptable before a disentitlement is imposed.
Decision 17928
Full Text of Decision 17928
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Taking a course in the afternoon. Available in the morning, evening and weekend. Disentitled after 7 months due to these restrictions. There is a duty of fairness on the Commission to provide one with some notice. A 4-week period is allowed to reflect an appropriate notice.
Decision 17786
Full Text of Decision 17786
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Based on CUBs 17292 and 15771, the date of disentitlement must be changed to reflect the date claimant was first made aware of her undue restriction. Notice sent in 12-87 was retroactive to 3-87. Allowing for a brief notice period, disentitlement beginsend of 12-87.
Decision 17690
Full Text of Decision 17690
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
This doctrine must be applied to the specific facts of the dispute. It cannot become a fixed, immutable and invariable rule or reduced to just a mathematical formula regardless of the circumstances.
Decision 17509
Full Text of Decision 17509
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues to have been told only that her restriction "might" affect her claim when she should have been told that it "would". This has no merit. It is clear she was warned on 2 occasions and that she persisted in the same conduct. The warnings could not have been clearer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
type of work |
|
Decision 17482
Full Text of Decision 17482
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Normally claimant should receive notice from CEIC before payment of benefits suspended but only if efforts made to find work; otherwise, what is the point of a notice? None.
Decision 17479
Full Text of Decision 17479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
I agree with the principle that a claimant making an effort to find a job in his own area for a reasonable salary should receive a notice concerning the restrictions imposed before payment of benefits is suspended.
Decision 17051
Full Text of Decision 17051
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Jurisprudence has required that claimants should receive a warning when they have persisted in restricting their job search too much for too long. Not required by legislation but by simple fairness. Reasonable opportunity to be given to bring one withinthe new conditions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
employed |
Decision 17065
Full Text of Decision 17065
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
On call worker who refused shifts due to illness of children and lack of transportation. Not provided with time to arrange alternative transportation. It has been held one should be given reasonable opportunity to rectify situation. 4 weeks are allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
transportation difficulties |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
Decision 17016
Full Text of Decision 17016
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Truck driver who left Coquitlam to relocate to a rural area. Disentitled after 21 weeks. Fairness requires that a person who is presumably conducting an adequate job search must be given some warning and an opportunity to change his situation. 3 more weeks allowed.
Decision 16998
Full Text of Decision 16998
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Disentitled 22 weeks after moving to a small town. Fairness requires that one who is presumably conducting an adequate job search must be given some warning. No such warning here. One must be given a reasonable opportunity to change her situation. 6 more weeks allowed.
Decision 16915
Full Text of Decision 16915
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Disentitled after 4 months: too restrictive. She was not given any warning. When she got a notice of disentitlement, she broadened her availability. She should have been given a 4-week period to remove restrictions. Error in law in not considering absence of warning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 16859
Full Text of Decision 16859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
I do not suggest that Commission staff should guide claimants by the hand through the maze of statute and regulations so they do not inadvertently fall into traps. But there is danger that the Commission might be perceived as playing a cat and mouse game with the unknowledgeable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Decision 16823
Full Text of Decision 16823
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Principles of fairness breached when Commission retroactively disentitles for reason that the search is too restrictive when one may have been led to believe the search was adequate. In those circumstances, a warning is required. Disentitlement applies from date of notice.
Decision 16812
Full Text of Decision 16812
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
UI paid for 7 months before it was terminated for restricted availability. Claimant was aware she would eventually have to broaden her search but was not told immediately before the time was up. I have decided to reduce the disentitlement, but not eliminate it, from 9 to 4 weeks.
Decision 13001A
Full Text of Decision 13001A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Inadequate search for employment: 1 in 11 months. Notice dated 6-6 took effect 27-5. Case law requires that CEIC warn insured before suspending benefit for that reason. This was not done. I therefore move date of disentitlement to 6-6.
Decision 16677
Full Text of Decision 16677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
I am concerned that recent jurisprudence requiring that claimants be warned of disentitlement unless the job search is broadened was not considered. But as claimant's availability is definitely restrictive, the decision should not be retroactive and is varied accordingly.
Decision 16359
Full Text of Decision 16359
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
I reject the argument of the insured to the effect that the CEIC has an obligation, before declaring ineligibility, to advise the claimant of the fact that her requirements regarding salary and type of work are too stringent.
Decision 15869
Full Text of Decision 15869
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
As long as UI was being received she had every right to believe that she was entitled to continue to search for work in that field alone. She was disentitled just 5 days after she was notified to broaden her job search. She should have been given 5 weeks after the warning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
or preferences |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
reasonable period of time |
|
Decision 15771
Full Text of Decision 15771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Moved to a small town while on UI. Disentitled retroactively. Because of difficulty in determining what is a reasonable period, claimants should receive a warning from the CEIC when they have persisted in their restriction. Not required by legislation but by fairness.
Decision 15759
Full Text of Decision 15759
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Seasonal groundskeeper 15 years disentitled when making claim 23-11. Employment opportunities virtually nil. Reasonable period to be allowed as per jurisprudence. Also warning to be given prior to disentitlement. Reasonable time and no warning to be considered by Board.
Decision 15389
Full Text of Decision 15389
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Left his job for which he was paid $300 a week and then asked for $500. I agree with that principle (that the insured person must be warned when his or her demands are too high in accordance with CUB-12842 and 14708). No time period was given. An error in law. Entitled to 8 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
wages or salary |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 15223
Full Text of Decision 15223
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
When CEIC's actions are such as to lead one to believe that the restrictions are acceptable, a clear warning must be given that availability is to be broadened. The CEIC cannot, by its conduct, acquiesce in such restrictions and then later demand returnof benefits paid. [p. 6]
Disentitled to 10-86 in 1-87. Restriction to day work had existed since 8-86. Not warned at 10-86 interview that she had to broaden her availability. UI continued to be paid until 1-87. It is to avoid such situations that Umpires have held that a warning must be given. [p. 6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
Decision 14751
Full Text of Decision 14751
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Argument presented: CEIC should warn the insured if job search is insufficient or if there are too many restrictions and give him the chance to change attitude. This is a misunderstanding of the law. Proof required from the insured according to 14(a). CEIC is under no obligation to encourage him to change.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
labour market information |
|
Decision 14708
Full Text of Decision 14708
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant took a French course and was advised 7 weeks later that she was not referred and she left. Fair treatment required that she be given both a warning and a reasonable opportunity to prove her availability by job search. Reasonable time would havebeen 4 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
negligence by Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Decision 14701
Full Text of Decision 14701
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
A person who has been receiving UI and who is therefore presumably conducting an adequate job search must be given some warning before being cut for an inadequate search. Reasonable period to be allowed after warning. Here 4 weeks would have been proper.
Decision 14549
Full Text of Decision 14549
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in concluding that the work sought by claimant was unduly restrictive. The disentitlement having been imposed without any warning from the Commission and the absence of a job market survey are further reasons to grant the appeal. [last page]
Decision 14440
Full Text of Decision 14440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant should have been given a reasonable time at lower rate. It also seems she should have been warned that her wage expectation was too high.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision 14375
Full Text of Decision 14375
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Some question as to whether claimant had been given proper warning by Commission of the inadequacy of her job search. If she had not, that would not change her availability but might indicate hers was an appropriate case for write off of overpayment under reg. 60.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 12842
Full Text of Decision 12842
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant was told that she could not use the word "prefer", so wrote the condition down as a restriction. Not proper to disentitle without first warning her that too restrictive a search may affect her right. If problem with claim, she has a right to bethe first to know.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
labour market information |
|
Decision 11101
Full Text of Decision 11101
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Available for evening work, no babysitter during the day. There is no doubt that the Commission should have informed her that she would not be entitled to benefits. [refusal of work at issue, not availability for work]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
rationale |
|
|
| refusal of work |
reasonable period of time |
|
|
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
Decision 10193
Full Text of Decision 10193
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Insured argued that CEIC obliged to inform claimant at end of the reasonable time allowed for seeking work that meets her requirements. Nothing in Act or Regulations that obliges CEIC to do so.
