| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
foreigners |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that, as an immigrant, he was not aware that there was an Employment Insurance Act, given that no legislation of this kind existed in his country of origin. BOR took into account the claimant's level of education (doctorate) and his numerous contacts with senior officials in Canada to conclude that ignorance of the legislation alone cannot constitute good cause. Decision upheld by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that, as an immigrant, he was not aware that there was an Employment Insurance Act, given that no legislation of this kind existed in his country of origin. BOR took into account the claimant's level of education (doctorate) and his numerous contacts with senior officials in Canada to conclude that ignorance of the legislation alone cannot constitute good cause. Decision upheld by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that, as an immigrant, he was not aware that there was an Employment Insurance Act, given that no legislation of this kind existed in his country of origin. BOR took into account the claimant's level of education (doctorate) and his numerous contacts with senior officials in Canada to conclude that ignorance of the legislation alone cannot constitute good cause. Decision upheld by the Umpire.
