Summary of Issue

Decision 68892 Full Text of Decision 68892

The claimant could have quit her job to follow her husband who had taken a managerial job in another locality with the same company, Domtar. On the advice of her Human Resources manager, she did not resign and chose to remain attached to her employment with Domtar which was lost due to a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute. The Board erred in treating the case as one of voluntary leaving.

Decision A-1036.92 Full Text of Decision A-1036.92

It is argued that a proper interpretation of ss. 31(1) does not require that the first 3 events quoted in VALOIS (a labour dispute; causing a stoppage; and loss of employment) occur in the order stated. It suffices that all 3 be present. I am unable to agree with this view. (see CARON)

Decision 21236 Full Text of Decision 21236

Refer to: A-1036.92

Decision 21211 Full Text of Decision 21211

There are 4 factual circumstances that the Commission must prove and assume the burden of proof: (1) there must have been a loss of employment; (2) loss of employment resulting from a stoppage of work; (3) stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute; (4) labour dispute at the premises where the claimant was employed.

Decision 15424 Full Text of Decision 15424

It must be recognized at the outset that the onus is on CEIC to prove everything required under subsection 31(1), including the work stopage.

Decision 14236 Full Text of Decision 14236

4 factors must be present for ss.44(1) to apply with burden of proof on the Commission: (1) a loss of employment; (2) as a result of a stoppage of work; (3) attributable to a labour dispute; and (4) stoppage and dispute must occur at claimant's premises.

Decision 14015 Full Text of Decision 14015

Criteria that must be considered under 31(1): (1) loss of employment; (2) caused by work stoppage; (3) attributable to labour dispute; and (4) stoppage and dispute occur at place where claimant is employed. [p. 6]

Decision S-0879.82

Cites following comments by an author without comment: "CEIC must establish (1) that there is a dispute, (2) by reason of a stoppage of work (3) and that the loss of employment resulted therefrom. Accordingly, reference is then made to 31(1)(a) and (b) and 31(2)." [p. 9]

Decision 12700 Full Text of Decision 12700

4 factors must be present under 31(1) with burden of proof on the Commission: (1) a loss of employment; (2) as a result of a stoppage of work; (3) stoppage attributable to dispute or considerable reduction; (4) stoppage and dispute at the premises whereclaimant is employed.

Decision 12102 Full Text of Decision 12102

For a claimant to be disentitled, claimant must have lost employment, loss of employment must have been brought about by work stoppage, which was caused by labour dispute occurring at claimant's place of work. [p. 5]

Decision 11902 Full Text of Decision 11902

It was up to CEIC to prove initially that s. 31 applied: loss of employment because of work stoppage attributable to labour dispute where insured worked.

Decision 10803A Full Text of Decision 10803A

4 factors must be present under 31(1): (1) loss of employment; (2) resulting from a stoppage of work; (3) attributable to a labour dispute; and (4) the stoppage of work and the labour dispute must occur at the premises at which claimant is employed.

Decision A-1514.83 Full Text of Decision A-1514.83

Before considering whether any of the relieving conditions of s.44(1) have been met, it is necessary to determine whether the conditions precedent to the imposition of the disentitlement were met.

Decision A-0879.82 Full Text of Decision A-0879.82

Cites following comments by an author without comment: "CEIC must establish (1) that there is a dispute, (2) by reason of a stoppage of work (3) and that the loss of employment resulted therefrom. Accordingly, reference is then made to 31(1)(a) and (b) and 31(2)." [p. 9]