| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Summary:
If there are countless claimants who would not pass a ss.14(a) test if put to it, it does not follow that 14(a) should not apply to those put to the test and who fail to make it. Disparities in enforcement processes cannot justify departures from the rule of law.
Institutions created by humans and administered by humans are never fool-proof. Abuses can never be totally eradicated. Administrative procedures can never be totally perfect. Perceived unfairness can never be totally avoided.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Many claimants feel at times oppressed by the numerous and complex provisions of the UI Act. These produce from time to time consequences perhaps unintended by Parliament but which nevertheless must be respected if the doctrine of equal treatment is to be maintained.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Jurisprudence has firmly established that in only the rarest and most exceptional of individual cases has a full-time student been able to prove availability. The presumption is always very strong against him.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Full-time attendance, whether high school, community college or private trade school, speaks louder than words. Mere declarations that claimant prepared to quit course tend to be in contradiction with the simple fact that he is engaged full-time in course.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Summary:
If a training or education program voluntarily undertaken by a claimant is deemed a virtuous pursuit, it does not follow that UI law must now provide universal bursaries to students.
