| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The Board seems to say: claimant was attending a full-time course therefore he was unavailable. Attendance at a full-time course raises a presumption of non-availability but that presumption can be rebutted. There is reason to conclude that the Board applied the wrong legal test.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
factors to consider |
|
Summary:
In every case the question which must be asked is whether claimant was available. This includes an examination of factors such as: flexibility of hours; money invested; intentions; job search; credit courses or merely for interest; length and timing of course.
