Decision A0004.13
Full Text of Decision A0004.13
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had 633 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period. He was advised that he was not entitled to benefits because the applicable regional rate of unemployment where he lived decreased from 7.3% to 6.2% in the week his claim for benefits had become effective. As a result, he required 665 hours of insurable employment. Relying on s. 17(1) of the EIR, the FCA agreed that the applicable regional rate of unemployment was the average of the seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment for the last three-month period that preceded the week of February 5, 2012. The FCA found that the applicable regional rate of unemployment was 7.3% in the week preceding the claimant’s claim for benefits. Therefore, only 630 hours of insurable employment were required.
Decision 63486
Full Text of Decision 63486
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire stated that under subsection 17(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations the regional rate of unemployment that applied to the claimant, because of her place of residence and not her place of work, was 7.6 per cent. He confirmed that, based on her hours of insurable employment, she was only entitled to 18 weeks of benefits.
Decision 32158
Full Text of Decision 32158
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
The country is divided into regions delineated by Regulation. The rate is established by Statistics Canada, whose authority was confirmed by FCA A-233-79 (Calder). Legal error by Board: the Board did not rule in accordance with the Act, the Regulations, or applicable jurisprudence.
Decision 24125
Full Text of Decision 24125
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Only Parliament can change the law and there is valid reason for allowing more benefits to claimants in areas where unemployment is higher. Whether the area boundaries are wisely chosen or not and whether the statistics obtained are accurate or not are not matters for a Board or an Umpire to determine.
Decision 20905B
Full Text of Decision 20905B
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Since reg. 52 precludes the critical analysis of the figures provided by Statistics Canada and requires the Commission to simply apply those figures, the means by which Statistics Canada arrives at the figures it provides to the Commission cannot be challenged by the claimant.
Decision 21551
Full Text of Decision 21551
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Worked in Ontario and claimed UI in 11-90 while residing there. Benefit period based on Ontario residence. Subsequently moved to home province, Newfoundland, in 1-91. He believed that because he moved he should not receive 20 weeks of benefits but a full year of benefits.
Decision 21007
Full Text of Decision 21007
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
I am clearly of the opinion that the statistical methodology adopted by Parliament for determining regional rates of unemployment is a legitimate differentiation in terms of qualification, based on legislative policy considerations. Not prohibited by s.15(1) of Charter.
Claimant's argument regarding the failure to distinguish between male and female claimants is totally lacking in merit because it supports the very sort of discrimination based on personal characteristics which s.15(1) of the Charter prohibits.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision 20905
Full Text of Decision 20905
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
With respect to the claimant's request that it be explained to him exactly how, on the basis of Statistics Canada figures, the 11.4% seasonally adjusted rate was arrived at, he is entitled to this information.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Decision 17587
Full Text of Decision 17587
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
No violation of Charter. Even if it was apparent that the composition of Region 51 was a distortion of the overall regional rate of unemployment, it would not be for an Umpire to change the boundary. Policy in adopting methods of statistics not a matter for Umpire.
Decision 16708
Full Text of Decision 16708
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Maximum UI payable here is 42 weeks. It was argued this gave rise to discrimination since in some areas the maximum is 52 weeks. Discrimination would apply if 1 of 2 claimants residing within same area had a lengthier benefit period than the other.
Decision 16159
Full Text of Decision 16159
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Benefits based on regional rate of unemployment alleged to be not a fair method in that it constitutes discrimination against older workers who have more difficulty in finding work. This is a fact of life and not created by legislation. Not a Charter case.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 15036
Full Text of Decision 15036
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Board wrong in holding reg. 52 contrary to Charter. They were wrong to ignore reg. 52 and paras. 58(t) and (u) of the Act on that basis. Board erred in law in being dissatisfied with the methodology used by Statistics Canada and selection of that agency.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 13049
Full Text of Decision 13049
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Statistics to be used are 3 months preceding date claim for benefit made and not 3 months following. Must use best evidence available for this purpose.
Decision 11579
Full Text of Decision 11579
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Not informed that rate had risen and that 10 weeks sufficient. Nothing in legislation to require CEIC to inform all claimants of changes to conditions of entitlement. It may have obligations to claimants but not to contributors.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Decision 10612
Full Text of Decision 10612
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Unemployment rate from 15-7-84 to 18-8-84 used; claim made on 15-8-84. Argued that rate was skewed because of events related to holidays that mobilized most of labour force: validity of Reg. 52(1) vs. Charter.
Decision A-0258.81
Full Text of Decision A-0258.81
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
The evidence is to the effect that the method of averaging rates of unemployment and the calculation carried to one decimal point was in keeping with standard practice and has been consistently applied in the past [p.7] as per Umpire. S.28 application dismissed for same reason.
The challenge raised is as to the means by which Statistics Canada arrived at the figures. Challenge not opened to clts since reg. 166(2) precluded the critical analysis of the figures and Comm. must apply them [p.7]. as per Umpire. S.28 application dismissed for same reason.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0233.79
Full Text of Decision A-0233.79
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Reg. 166(2) which states that average rates of unemployment as determined by Statistics Canada are to be used was validly made under s.58(u) as it existed prior to 11-9-77.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0223.79
Full Text of Decision A-0223.79
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
I have no doubt that the adoption of Reg. 166(2) was authorized by ss. 58(u) which gives the CEIC the authority to set the average unemployment rate and to stipulate how it is calculated.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of unemployment |
|