| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Summary:
The consideration the Board gave to claimant's submission, her unwillingness to leave the course and the policy of the Law Society adequately expresses the basis of the decision. As stated in ROBERTS, clear legal reasoning is not expected in the contextof decisions of a Board.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Normal expectation is full-time study does not leave time for full-time work. Failing referral by Commission, one must show this is one of those unusual cases. This requires more than a simple statement of intention, i.e. a history of work and study combined over several years.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Summary:
It has been noted on numerous occasions by Umpires that UI is not intended as a subsidy to enable a claimant to pursue studies however meritorious his intentions may be.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
time required for studies |
|
Summary:
Even though the claimant may not have attended classes, she was required to do so, and admitted to doing home study in order to prepare for her exams. Whether she studies at home, or goes to classes, her time is occupied with the course.
