| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Commission refused to extend the benefit period because the claimant could have demanded the difference between the benefit rate ($245/wk) and the preventative withdrawal settlement rate ($222/wk). The Board of Referees set aside this decision. Umpire found that subsection 9(7) does not apply to this case. The claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, since the amount of his settlement was less than his unemployment insurance benefits. The Board thus erred in its interpretation of this provision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
Summary:
Commission refused to extend the benefit period because the claimant could have demanded the difference between the benefit rate ($245/wk) and the preventative withdrawal settlement rate ($222/wk). The Board of Referees set aside this decision. Umpire found that subsection 9(7) does not apply to this case. The claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, since the amount of his settlement was less than his unemployment insurance benefits. The Board thus erred in its interpretation of this provision.
