Summary of Issue: Proof Required For Entitlement

Decision 55364 Full Text of Decision 55364

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

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.

Decision 18082 Full Text of Decision 18082

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.

Decision 16768 Full Text of Decision 16768

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".

Decision A-0396.85 Full Text of Decision A-0396.85

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.

Decision A-0771.80 Full Text of Decision A-0771.80

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.

Decision A-0170.80 Full Text of Decision A-0170.80

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).

Decision A-0006.80 Full Text of Decision A-0006.80

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.