Decision A-0244.94

Summary:

In the case at bar, the claimant made two claims for benefit: the September renewal claim and the November renewal claim. The proper issue is whether the disqualification imposed in respect of the September claim is also applicable in respect of the November claim.

---

Summary:

A claim for benefit, against which a disqualification applies under s. 28, does not require a claimant to file biweekly reporting cards. See KACHMAN. The filing of such report cards is only a requirement of eligibility to receive benefits once a claim has been made. This is clear from s. 40. Claimant suspended from work for 3 weeks due to misconduct. Filed a renewal claim and was disqualified. Did not file any reporting card. Was laid off for lack of work 7 weeks after. Filed a second renewal claim. Held that the prior disqualification does not apply to the second renewal claim.

---

Summary:

I take it to be accepted law that the interpretation which most accords with the purpose of the legislation must be deemed the proper one. Thus, the question that must be addressed is whether the applicant's interpretation promotes the purposes underlying the imposition of a disqualification period.

---

Summary:

The disqualification provisions of the Act (s. 27, 28 and 30) are generally recognized as penal sanctions intended "to deter claimants from unjustifiably quitting their job, losing it through their own fault, or failing to avail themselves of employment opportunities" (CUB 11941).

---

Summary:

Where there is more than one claim, should a disqualification for misconduct on one particular claim (9-91) also apply to a subsequent claim, irrespective of the cause of such subsequent claim? There must be a causal connection between a disqualification and a claim in respect of which it applies.

---