Summary of Issue: Illness

Decision 69704 Full Text of Decision 69704

The claimant was short 60 hours to qualify for maternity benefits because she had reduced her work schedule to the equivalent of 2 weeks per month due to pregnancy related illness. The burden of proof was on the claimant to prove that throughout some weeks in her qualifying period she was incapable of work because of illness or pregnancy. Certainly one is not pregnant only in alternate weeks and it stretches the imagination to accept that illness associated with one's pregnancy alternates from work week to work week.

Decision A-0114.98 Full Text of Decision A-0114.98

Claimant had 15 weeks of insurable employment to qualify while 26 weeks were needed. Requested an extension of his qualifying period alleging that he was on "economic quarantine" when being unable to obtain or retain employment because of the vindictive actions of his former employer and that should be associated to the term "quarantine" found in the legislation. Contention rejected by Umpire who concluded that the word "quarantine" found in the Act is being used as an cognate to illness or injury. The FCA summarily dismissed the claimant's request for review.

Decision 40093 Full Text of Decision 40093

See summary indexed under FCA A-0114.98.

Decision 27930 Full Text of Decision 27930

The physician advised that claimant was capable of performing related work in sales or service. The Board accepted evidence that automobile insurance benefits were paid for an additional 8 weeks. The payment of automobile insurance benefits does not constitute proof of disability.

Decision 22473 Full Text of Decision 22473

Unable to hold the job he had before his accident, as he could not perform all the tasks associated with that job. Consequently, the benefits received from the CSST were basically paid not because continuing to work would entail danger to him , but for physical reasons.

Decision 18092 Full Text of Decision 18092

On preventative maternity leave. The argument that she was unable to do her normal work because of pregnancy does not suffice. The wording of Reg. 48(4) has the same meaning as that of 47(6). The insured person must be unable to perform the duties of another suitable job. See CONDON.

Decision 14668 Full Text of Decision 14668

Para.18(2)(a) must be construed to refer to the illness of a claimant. Illness of claimant's son does not qualify. Also, reg. 47(6) surely suggests physical incapability of a claimant. Para.18(2)(a) is therefore clarified.

Decision 13184 Full Text of Decision 13184

Board erred in law by concluding that claimant had not proved she was totally incapable of work. Para. 7(2)(a) does not require that claimant be totally incapable.

Decision 11136 Full Text of Decision 11136

Having failed to prove her illness in the manner directed by the Commission, she is not entitled to an extension of her qualifying period under ss.7(2).

Decision 09194 Full Text of Decision 09194

Claimant had been obliged both by his own choice and by provincial legislation to look after his sick mother. It is the claimant's own incapacity that can be considered and not that of a member of his family. The illness of a member is not legally acceptable.

Decision 09102 Full Text of Decision 09102

Claimant was unemployed during the last 52 weeks. The reason he gave for being out of work was that he was at home taking care of his terminally ill wife. Under ss.18(2), one may extend the qualifying period for certain reasons, but it does not include this situation.

Decision A-0117.79 Full Text of Decision A-0117.79

As per Umpire, the illness referred to in reg. 160(6), now 47(6), includes the illness of a child that renders a mother incapable of work. Judgment set aside by the Court. Reg. 160(6) refers solely to an illness suffered by a claimant.