| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
