Summary of Issue: Notice Of Interview

Decision 51833 Full Text of Decision 51833

Claimant directed to attend an interview which he refused to do. Argued that there was no purpose in his attendance at the information session as he had obtained the information in the past and was returning to work two weeks after the session. Held both by BOR and Umpire that the Commission had determined that such a reason did not constitute circumstances warranting a waiver and that it would be improper to question the Commission's exercise of discretion.

Decision A-0370.99 Full Text of Decision A-0370.99

Making reference to its decision in Herrera (A-0397.99), the Court was of the view that the Umpire erred in law when he found that the information session was not an "interview" within the legislation. The information session referred to in the notice to report falls squarely within the definition of interview enunciated by Parliament in paragraph 27(1)(i) of the EIA.

Decision A-0397.99 Full Text of Decision A-0397.99

Claimant disqualified for 6 weeks for not attending a Group Information Session (GIS). Umpire ruled that the information session was not an interview in the normal sense of the word and that the failure to attend did not attract a disqualification. The Court found that the Umpire had erred in law stating that the Parliament has described an interview as including "an interview.. to provide information and instruction to help the claimant find employment...". The information session in question here clearly fell within this statutory definition.

Decision 44674 Full Text of Decision 44674

Claimant did not report to a Group Information Session (GIS) and was disqualified for 6 weeks for not attending the interview. Referring to the wording of par. 27(1)(d) of the EIA, umpire ruled that a GIS could not be seen neither as an interview in the normal sense of the word nor that the direction under par. 27(1)(c) of the EIA was reasonable having regard to the claimant's circumstances and to the usual means of obtaining suitable employment. Decision appealed by the Commission to the FCA.

Decision 43843A Full Text of Decision 43843A

See summary indexed under FCA A-0397.99

Decision A-0207.97 Full Text of Decision A-0207.97

Following receipt of a Notice to report to an interview, claimant alleged that his right to be advised of his right to counsel pursuant to par. 10(b) of the "Charter" was denied. Argument dismissed by the Umpire. The whole procedure is routine in nature to enable the Commission to gather information to ensure that the claimant is entitled to the benefits. It is not an investigation into "wrongdoing". It was a fact-finding exercise in which the claimant, as a recipient of benefits, was obliged to participate. Decision maintained by FCA.

Decision 28238 Full Text of Decision 28238

Held that the notification to attend sent out pursuant to ss. 41(6), in order to provide required information on the claimant's availability does not meet the provisions of s. 91 and thus, cannot be used as the basis to disqualify a claimant pursuant to para. 27(1)(d).

Decision 21627 Full Text of Decision 21627

Claimant informed the Commission that, on the basis of legal advice, he would not be attending unless he was apprised of the nature of the allegations against him. I do not accept that failure to provide such details constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice. The legislation is clear that in order to continue receiving benefits, the claimant must, at the very least, attend the scheduled interview in order to ascertain, and later provide, whatever information the Commission deems necessary. Failed to comply with ss. 41(6) on 15-1-91 and 14-2-91. His refusal to attend the interview for the purpose of reviewing his job search and discussing his availability for work entitled the Commission to make a determination that he had not met the requirements effective 26-11-90. To suggest that a claimant is entitled to know the case he has to meet prior to attending an interview is a misconception of the Commission's role in administering the provisions of the legislation. Certainly he could not be prevented from having his solicitor attend the meeting.

Decision 21448 Full Text of Decision 21448

At issue 8-10-90 to 21-2-91 due to failure to report for interview. I am unable to see how he could have disentitled himself until the day he failed to appear as required, namely on 26-11-90. It was an error of law to uphold any disentitlement prior to 26-11-90. See CUB-10089.

Decision 15265 Full Text of Decision 15265

Notice sent 21-12; did not report 23-12 as requested. He admits receiving notice but it was misplaced and not discovered until some 4 days after. The Board found that there was no justification. I find that 6 weeks is rather harsh under the circumstances. Reduced to 2 weeks.