Summary of Issue: Address Of Normal Place Of Residence

Decision 72468 Full Text of Decision 72468

The claimant did not accumulate the number of hours of insurable employment required to be eligible to receive benefits. Among other things, the claimant failed to report her actual place of residence and thus received benefits to which she was not entitled. The regional rate of unemployment was higher in the region where she claimed to be living. The Board of Referees' decisions; one pertaining to false or misleading statements, one pertaining to a penalty imposed and one pertaining to a violation. The Umpire dismissed the claimant's appeals.

Decision 72851 Full Text of Decision 72851

The claimant filed a claim for benefits in June 27, 2008 and submitted a number of Records of Employment showing that he accumulated a total of 542 hours of insurable employment. The Commission determined that the claimant did not accumulate the number of insurable hours employment required to have a benefit period established, as he needed 700 hours. Claimant said that he lived away from home (Charlevoix) when he was working and knew he wouldn¿t qualify for EI in Quebec City as he lives with his girlfriend in Quebec City. The Commissions appeal is allowed as per the Umpire.

Decision 46455 Full Text of Decision 46455

Claimant notified of a penalty by a letter dated 11-07-1997. Appeal lodged in March 1998. Claimant explained the delay saying that he moved from his old address and received the mail late at his new address. The claimant admitted before the Umpire that he had not kept the Commission informed of his current address which is a requirement of SS.50(9) of EIA. Power to grant an extension to the 30 day appeal period is a discretionary power that belongs to the Commission and no evidence that the Commission exercised its discretion in a non-judicial manner.

Decision 20604 Full Text of Decision 20604

Lived many months at his son's place in Montreal. Claimant always kept his normal residence in the Gaspé area where his wife lived and where he continued to have a telephone number, furniture etc. Moreover, he returned there to resume his seasonal employment. Married claimant residing in the Gaspé area; stayed many months at his son's place in Montreal. The Act refers to "the mailing address of his normal place of residence". Heavier onus imposed by CEIC and Board who referred to current mailing address and actual residence.

Decision 16912 Full Text of Decision 16912

A 3-month retroactive decision. Did not notify the authorities of his change of address because he received his mail in the same post office box and the telephone number provided was that of his brother, who could contact him. This does not suffice. The Act [subsection 41(9)] is very clear in this regard.

Decision 14436 Full Text of Decision 14436

Refer to: A-1199.87

Decision A-1199.87 Full Text of Decision A-1199.87

Moved from Contrecoeur to Trois-Rivières, Que., without notification. Overpayment: $4 755. It is clear that, when one moves, one must inform the CEIC. To be disentitled unless claimant was completely honest with the CEIC, said Umpire. Appeal dismissed by FC. The Umpire did not err.

Decision 14453 Full Text of Decision 14453

Claimant did not understand the notice and did not request transfer of his claim as advised. He failed to comply with 41(2) and was disentitled until such time as he had requested a transfer. He failed to contact the Commission when no cheques were received.

Decision 11368 Full Text of Decision 11368

The meaning of ss.41(9) is very clear. A claimant who fails to supply his address is not entitled to benefit for as long as he fails to supply it. When he had moved on a previous occasion he notified the Commission but not on this occasion.

Decision 11333 Full Text of Decision 11333

On 1-4, claimant changed his address and informed the Commission. On 27-4, claimant went from Vancouver to Winnipeg and there is no evidence to support this change of address. As a result, disqualification for voluntary leaving not served upon filing renewal claim.

Decision 08982 Full Text of Decision 08982

Stopped working in B.C. on 24-10-82 and made claim there; moved to Quebec in 12-82 without informing CEIC; disentitled from 5-12 to 7-2. He did not make his claim at the office where he had been residing since 12-82 in accordance with 41(2) and did not supply mailing adderss in accordance with 41(9).

Decision 24644 Full Text of Decision 24644

Claimant refused to provide a residential address. He said he was entitled to privacy. He only provided a post office box number. The Board held that there was no intention to defraud. That was not the reason for disentitlement. He simply failed to provide his address in compliance with the statute.

Decision 22376 Full Text of Decision 22376

The mere furnishing of a post office box number or a telephone number of a relative through whom a claimant may be reached is not necessarily sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement for supplying the mailing address of a claimant's normal place of residence under ss.41(9): CUB_16912.

Decision 16912 Full Text of Decision 16912

A 3-month retroactive decision. Did not notify the authorities of his change of address because he received his mail in the same post office box and the telephone number provided was that of his brother, who could contact him. This does not suffice. The Act [subsection 41(9)] is very clear in this regard.