Decision 14357

Summary:

Eligibility of a foreign student who does not possess a work permit. Claimant's counsel moved to have added as intervenors other students and organizations. Motion refused. Eligibility based on specific facts of each individual case. [p. 2]

---

Summary:

It appears that the Board included in the definition of "available" the requirement of being authorized to work [p. 10]. The Board erred in automatically denying benefits because claimant did not have a valid employment authorization. [p. 13] Foreign student now a visitor. Under a large handicap in proving availability. She is in an analogous position to a claimant who, due to location or family commitments, is forced to place restrictions. May be entitled to reasonable period of time such as 8 weeks. [p. 12-13] Foreign student whose work permit was refused following change of status as visitor, husband still a student. Immigration Regulations examined. The fact that she can only apply for an authorization after obtaining a job offer does not prevent her from being available. [p. 12] Claimant must be able to establish that she has been seeking the type of employment for which she could reasonably expect to obtain a work authorization. If so, she should be given a reasonable time to obtain such employment. [p. 13] I do not find that the law violates the Charter. If not entitled, it will not be because she is a non-immigrant but because factually not available. Similarly situated with those who, because of reasons beyond control, are forced to impose restrictions.[p. 13]

---

Summary:

The definition of "available" does not include the requirement of being authorized to work. Dictionary meanings examined. Availability does not mean capable as that term is also used in 14(a). It means "accessible" or "obtainable". Non-availability is not automatic but is a handicap.

---