| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
imprisonment |
|
Summary:
Claimant asserted that, because he had chosen to be confined to a residential drug addiction treatment centre, he was not subject to par. 32(a) of the Act regarding inmates. Claim dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant was required to be at the residential drug addiction treatment centre 24 hours a day. The court order even stated that he would be taken into custody if he left the residential centre. Claimant was not in a position to look for work or hold any type of job. FCA decision in Whiffen (A-1472.92) cited.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
immediate availability |
|
Summary:
Claimant asserted that, because he had chosen to be confined to a residential drug addiction treatment centre, he was not subject to par. 32(a) of the Act regarding inmates. Claim dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant was required to be at the residential drug addiction treatment centre 24 hours a day. The court order even stated that he would be taken into custody if he left the residential centre. Claimant was not in a position to look for work or hold any type of job. FCA decision in Whiffen (A-1472.92) cited.
