Decision 70544
Full Text of Decision 70544
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
The claimant maintained that his benefit period should have been extended under section 10(10)(c) of the Act. The Commission determined that the claimant received $324 a week from the WHSCC, and because he was entitled to receive $345 a week in Employment Insurance benefits, he could not be considered ineligible for Employment Insurance benefits during the period when he was receiving workers' compensation from the WHSCC. The Commission determined that the claimant was entitled to receive $21.00 in benefits for each week during the period. The evidence shows that during no weeks of his benefit period could he not receive Employment Insurance benefits because he was collecting workers' compensation.
Decision S-1059.84
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
It is difficult to understand why two insured persons disentitled under s. 36 because incapable of work should be treated differently because one received worker's compensation. This anomaly should not be remedied by judicial intervention.
An insured who has received worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was disentitled under s. 36.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
necessary conditions |
|
board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision S-1071.84
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
An insured who receives worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was not entitled under s. 36.
Decision A-0649.86
Full Text of Decision A-0649.86
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
Not only does 9(7)(c) not treat equally situated persons unequally, it actually affords disabled persons who have received workers' compensation payments the same benefits under the Act that other disabled are entitled to, all else being equal. It does not offend the Charter.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 12837
Full Text of Decision 12837
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0649.86
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 11028
Full Text of Decision 11028
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
According to CEIC, receiving compensation does not count if it must be repaid; suggested that case be adjourned while awaiting final decision of CSST. Request denied. Entitlement may be reviewed under 43(1) at proper time.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision A-1071.84
Full Text of Decision A-1071.84
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
An insured who receives worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was not entitled under s. 36.