Summary of Issue: Disqualification And Disentitlement

Decision A-1692.92 Full Text of Decision A-1692.92

Two job refusals resulting in 2 disqualifications and a disentitlement. According to the Umpire, a disqualification and a disentitlement cannot be imposed for the same reasons. Error of law, the Court held. The disqualification and the disentitlement refer to different facts and distinct schemes. It is possible that the claimant's gesture, leading to the disqualification (s. 27), reveals a behaviour which equally warrants a notice of disentitlement (s. 14). For example, 2 job refusals would tend to indicate that a claimant is actually not available.

Decision 22116 Full Text of Decision 22116

Refer to: A-1692.92

Decision 18150 Full Text of Decision 18150

Teacher who chose an extended leave of absence rather than return to work after confinement. Disqualified 3 weeks for neglect to avail and disentitled for failure to prove availability. Both decisions arise out of the same fact situation. No error on the part of the Board.

Decision 14617A Full Text of Decision 14617A

Claimant argues that as a result of a 6-week disqualification for leaving work he ought to be entitled to UI once the disqualification ends. This would be acceptable if a second disqualification for attending a full-time course had not been imposed.

Decision 14924 Full Text of Decision 14924

Insured person declared ineligible until 22-7. Therefore, before that date, he could not serve the 6-week disqualification resulting from employment refusal. Therefore, ineligible even if employed within a job creation project. [p. 5]

Decision 12908 Full Text of Decision 12908

3 months unpaid leave to attend courses. Left voluntarily without just cause and not available.

Decision 12854 Full Text of Decision 12854

Disqualified for 6 weeks in 11-85 for leaving voluntarily, 6 weeks in 1-86 for refusing employment and disentitled in 3-86 for non-availability.

Decision 12767 Full Text of Decision 12767

Nowhere in Act does it say that imposition of one penalty automatically rules out application of another. While cumulative penalties may appear harsh and unfair, penalties exist for a very specific reason.

Decision 12614 Full Text of Decision 12614

I would have thought that CEIC could not rely on ss. 14(a) and 28 simultaneously. Review of case law seems to indicate contrary. See RONDEAU and CUB-12464.

Decision 12589 Full Text of Decision 12589

I would note that disqualification and disentitlement cannot be served concurrently; must be sequential.

Decision 12464 Full Text of Decision 12464

Benefit period commenced 28-7. Claimant found not available until 22-9. Waiting period and disqualification can only be served from latter date. Waiting period served from 22-9 to 5-10. Disqualification served 6-10 to 16-11. Entitled to receive benefit from 17-11. [p. 4-5]

Decision 11941 Full Text of Decision 11941

Refused work so that she could make a trip to India. Found not available in the meantime and in addition disqualified 6 weeks for refusal. Disqualification served only following return to Canada since it applies at a time when one is entitled to receiveUI.

Decision 11333 Full Text of Decision 11333

It is argued that the disqualification under 28(1) cannot be served when a claimant has been disentitled for failing to comply with s.41. This argument is well founded.

Decision A-0613.81 Full Text of Decision A-0613.81

Claimant disqualified and disentitled; she refused employment because she could not find a babysitter. Double penalty argument not raised.

Decision A-0889.77 Full Text of Decision A-0889.77

Voluntary departure to go to school; disqualification and disentitlement upheld; however, matter of double penalty not put in issue.

Decision A-0133.76 Full Text of Decision A-0133.76

If the facts justify the disentitlement under s. 14, the CEIC must consequently dismiss the claim and apply any disqualification based on the facts to a period for which benefits would otherwise be payable.