Decision 55364
Full Text of Decision 55364
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant filed his claim after the settlement of his claim for wrongful dismissal. He refused to provide any information regarding his settlement as one of the terms of the settlement was that the details were to be kept confidential. Held that the Act requires that a claimant provide some basic information relating to a claim for benefits and since the claimant cannot meet this requirement, his claim cannot be established.
Decision A-0370.95
Full Text of Decision A-0370.95
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant temporarily residing in California on his doctor's advice. The FCA ruled that the claimant failed to show that when he applied for benefits he was "outside Canada for the purpose of undergoing medical treatment in a hospital or similar institution and that such treatment was not available in Canada". FCA ruled that the Commission was not required by legislation or otherwise to prove or disprove any such facts.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 18082
Full Text of Decision 18082
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
As per FALARDEAU, ss.40(1) imposes on claimant the burden of establishing his eligibility in all cases. This cannot mean that the CEIC may baldly assert that he is self-employed and put him to the strict proof that he is not. It must build a prima faciacase for him to refute.
The Board must then assess the evidence pro and con on the balance of probabilities and then clearly indicate which argument is the strongest. In a case where it cannot earnestly decide on the balance of probabilities the impasse is to be resolved against the claimant.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
business of a spouse |
|
|
week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
Decision 16768
Full Text of Decision 16768
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Obviously, the Board erred in law in its assessment of the burden of proof. While subsection 40(1) places on the claimant the burden of proving his entitlement in every case, this proof must be established on the balance of probabilities and not "beyond all doubt".
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0396.85
Full Text of Decision A-0396.85
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Ss. 40(1) imposes on a claimant the burden of establishing his eligibility in all cases on a balance of probabilities. If, after hearing evidence from both sides, the Board only had a doubt as to claimant's eligibility, he clearly had not discharged the burden upon him.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0771.80
Full Text of Decision A-0771.80
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Case referred back to Umpire to determine what portion of the settlement can be characterized as compensation for loss of income on the basis that under ss.40(1) no UI is paid unless claimant proves that no circumstances exist to disentitle him.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A-0170.80
Full Text of Decision A-0170.80
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
A portion of the settlement represents damages for breach of contrat, another represents compensation for the loss of the right to future earnings. The latter is earnings as per WALFORD. No evidence to quantify the 2 portions. Proof to be made by claimant under ss.40(1).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision A-0006.80
Full Text of Decision A-0006.80
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Because of strike, insured lost part-time job while he was claimant. Only vested rights: to claim benefits for a certain number of weeks. Entitlement is not a vested right because of 40(1). Case dismissed by FC without comment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
board of referees |
legislative authority |
acquired rights |
|