Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision 72884 Full Text of Decision 72884

The claimant did not provide his correct address when he filed his August 28, 2005 claim for benefits. As a result, the Commission decreased the claimant's benefit rate from $413.00 to $398.00 and found that he was entitled to only 21 weeks of benefits rather than 42 weeks. He said that his place of residence was in the Magdalen Islands. In July 2007, the claimant informed the Commission that he had moved and provided a new address in Montreal. He told the investigating officer that his usual place of residence was in Montreal, that he received his financial documents there and that he had a lease there that ended in 2008. His bank account was in Montreal, he had always voted in Montreal and his driver's licence had his Montreal address on it. He said that he was aware of the effect that his economic region could have on his benefit claim. He knew that he could receive more weeks of benefits if he filed his claim using an address in the Magdalen Islands. The commission imposed an overpayment, penalty and a notice of violation. The claimant¿s appeal is dismissed.

Decision 64683 Full Text of Decision 64683

The test of where one is "ordinarily resident" involves a consideration of both subjective and objective facts. This term refers to the residence that is most important to the appellant because of habit, regularity and consistency in choosing that residence. The Umpire confirmed the decision of the Board of Referees finding that the appellant's actions demonstrated that his most important residence was still in Sainte Ourse.

Decision 40662 Full Text of Decision 40662

The term "usual" clearly excludes any stay in a place where a person is not intending to live permanently. In the present case, this statement applies to Levis, where the claimant was simply living termporarily while studying.

Decision 36726 Full Text of Decision 36726

The intent of an individual, in matters of home or residence, is always a very important factor. In this case, the claimant was indeed the owner of a residence in Hull and not in Maniwaki as he had claimed, and he never intended to change his home address.

Decision 21968 Full Text of Decision 21968

The Board ignored the requirement of the Regulations to apply the test to the claimant's circumstances in the week preceding the week for which he applied for benefits. I must therefore set aside the decision of the Board because of this error of law. Strict attention must be paid to the time when one becomes entitled to apply for UI. Otherwise it would be open to claimants newly in receipt of UI and living in an area of relatively low unemployment, to move deliberately to some area of high unemploymentwith greater entitlement.

Decision 20205 Full Text of Decision 20205

The ordinary place of residence is not necessarily the place where the person dwells permanently or exclusively, but where the person during the material time, has his usual or settled abode.