| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
Termination of disentitlement under 31(2) is not contrary to the policy of the Act, which is to provide benefits to unemployed persons while avoiding having such benefits used for the purposes of financing a labour dispute.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
There is no requirement that the loss of employment should be simultaneous with the dispute or the stoppage and ss. 31(2) clearly contemplates that it may be later in time as, for example, where non union employees are laid off some time after the strike has begun.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
Summary:
A disentitlement which has come into being under 31(1) continues until (a) or (b) applies. This does not exclude the possibility of it becoming inapplicable by reason of claimant subsequently proving 31(2). This is not contrary to the policy of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
An employee who retires (voluntarily or compulsorily) severs his relationship with his employer. He no longer has anything to win or lose. He has become a free agent. The source of his loss of employment, a critical factor under 31(1), is no longer relevant.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
Summary:
An application to set aside the decision in MOTYCHKA (CUB 8698) was dismissed by this Court, but since no reasons were given, we do not know on what basis it had been attacked.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Summary:
A disentitlement which has come into being under 31(1) continues until (a) or (b) applies. This does not exclude the possibility of it becoming inapplicable by reason of claimant subsequently proving 31(2). This is not contrary to the policy of the Act.
Truly retired during strike. It was argued that he might have an eventual interest in the settlement should he decide to return. Assuming that such interest was different from that of the public at large, it would not be "direct" within 31(2).
