| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, established jurisprudence has confirmed that a student taking full-time courses is not available. This rule is subject to 2 exceptions: a student referred to a course and the one who has established a pattern of work and studies. Errow in law. Observation too categorical.
While it is true that there is a presumption against the full-time student, this is a presumption of fact which certainly is not irrebuttable. It can be rebutted by proof of exceptional circumstances. The work record is only one example. There may be others.
Strictly speaking, the "first exception", a student referred to the course, is not an exception: it is actually a statutory rule (see s. 26(1)) which provides that a claimant who meets certain conditions is deemed to be unemployed and available for work.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
Summary:
Claimant was not believed when he stated that he would have dropped his university courses for which he had received large subsidies in the form of scholarships and student loans if he had been offered employment. In those circumstances, it is clear that the Umpire was right to dismiss his appeal.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, established jurisprudence has confirmed that a student taking full-time courses is not available. This rule is subject to 2 exceptions: a student referred to a course and one who has established a pattern of work and studies. Errow in law. Observation too categorical.
