| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attendance at full-time course does not preclude from being available. It raises a presumption of non-availability. Where one is proceeding towards certificate, paying own tuition and living expenses, and subject of the course is to be one's life's work, very strong presumption.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
Summary:
Availability assumes that one's real intention is to obtain work and not continue the course. Evidence of this will consist of active and extensive job search, not with a view to eliminating the disentitlement but with a real effort to find a job.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The fact that the claimant has said time and time again that he would leave the course will ordinarily not be sufficient to prove availability.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Summary:
The Board may have thought that there was a legislative prohibition on the payment of UI to persons attending a full-time course. There is no such prohibition. Had Parliament so decided, it would have been a simple matter to provide for it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
employment left |
|
Summary:
To leave employment without just cause 1 year earlier on a previous course invites a 6-week disqualification. When this has been done a claimant is entitled to have future claims adjudicated without reference to that previous event unless a course of conduct is established.
