Summary of Issue


Decision 52749 Full Text of Decision 52749

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

Child placed with the claimant on 2-10-2000 for adoption. Wanting to receive 35 weeks of parental benefits instead of the 10 payable before changes to the legislation, the claimant argued that this date should not be used because the placement was not made pursuant to a placement order, which did not come until later, on 31-12-2000. Deemed that this interpretation would lead to a ridiculous situation and would prevent the legislation from serving its purpose.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits for the purpose of adoption

Decision 47219 Full Text of Decision 47219

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

Two infant brothers were placed in the claimant's home with the purpose of adoption. Theodore was placed on March 25, 1998 and his brother's placement took place four days prior. Commission ruled that the placements were made at substantially the same time and comprised, therefore, a single placement. The BOR concluded that the placements four days part were separate placements and separate adoptions. Error in law ruled the Umpire. The four day period is not a significant period of time and it must follow that the two placements were made at substantially the same time.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits arrival at home

Decision 38323 Full Text of Decision 38323

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

"The placing" of a child, for the purposes of the Act, refers to actual, physical custody. Generally, physical custody of a child occurs prior to actual adoption, which, in accordance with provincial law, usually occurs at a later date by final court order. The date of the placement, not the date of the court order, governs payment of benefits.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits for the purpose of adoption
parental benefits charter
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of provision

Decision 21054 Full Text of Decision 21054

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

The child was a relative. Placed in her care on 15-8-89. Adoption to be final in 10-89. Under the provincial Child Welfare Act placement occurs when final consents received. Under the UI Act, placement occurs the day the child is taken into the custody of the adopting parents.


Decision 20114 Full Text of Decision 20114

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

Newborn child placed with claimant on 21-2-89. Under the Ontario legislation the birth parents had 21 days to revoke consent. Therefore child not registered until 21-3-89. Placed there on 21-2-89 for the purpose of adoption. The adoption process had in fact commenced.


Decision 19790 Full Text of Decision 19790

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

"Actual placement" refers to the date on which the child is physically placed with the claimant for adoption purposes and not to the date on which the adoption order is issued: CUBs 10285B, 10880 and 11015. The Manitoba Act clearly seems to make such a distinction. [p._6]


Decision 18498 Full Text of Decision 18498

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

The Board was wrong to conclude that the child was "really placed" only at the time of the final adoption decision on 21-11-88. The Board should at least have found that the child had been really placed for adoption when the placement order was made on 21-6-88.


Decision 17730 Full Text of Decision 17730

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

Grandmother privately adopting daughter's child. Mother residing with claimant. Application for adoption commenced 20-10, the order issued 15-1. Given these facts, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the child was placed for the purpose of adoption on 20-10.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim factual cases adoption benefits

Decision 16706 Full Text of Decision 16706

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

Claimant's sister killed in accident in Sri Lanka. She took paid leave from work to go there where she was granted adoption of 2 children on 8-7-87. She returned to Canada with children on 25-7. Placement occurred 8-7. Placement in Canada not required under reg. 54(6).

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits period payable

Decision 10285B Full Text of Decision 10285B

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

On 4-3-83 claimant married mother of child and all 3 started to live together. On 28-5-84 he became the adoptive father and took leave from work. Child actually placed with claimant in 3-83, 17-week period over. Legislation distinguishes between placement and adoption.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits child of spouse

Decision 10880 Full Text of Decision 10880

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
parental benefits actually placed
Summary:

Custody of child on 29-6-83; application to adopt on 18-11-83; placement order on 14-12-83; adoption benefits promulgated on 1-1-84; claim for benefit on 23-1-84; adoption judgment 27-3-84. Actually placed on 29-6-83 according to dictionary. 20(2)(b) ended on 29-10-83.

Date modified: