| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the Board applied the wrong test. It is not merely cases in which one has shown a pattern of work coincident with a full-time course which satisfies s.14. The test is always the overring consideration of whether the particular claimant was in fact available.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
A person is not automatically unavailable because he is attending a full-time course. A strong presumption, however, arises that this is the case. That presumption can be rebutted. Primary factors: one's intention and whether he would leave the course if work were found.
