Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision 11061 Full Text of Decision 11061

Under s.26, once a claimant is referred by the Commission, he is deemed to be unemployed and available. In other words, no need to prove availability. The Commission cannot prevent the application of the Act by imposing conditions not provided for in the legislation.

Decision 10687 Full Text of Decision 10687

S. 26 quite simply creates a fiction to get around para. 14(b). Provision clear and liberal construction not appropriate here. Moreover, as an exceptional measure, s. 26 is subject to narrow construction; rule sufficiently recognized in case law.

Decision 77023 Full Text of Decision 77023

The claimant was not entitled to benefits because he was absent from Canada and not available for work, pursuant to section 37 and paragraph 18(a) of the EI Act. The claimant is in a unique line of work, deep-sea diving, and must continue his training in courses only offered outside of Canada. This course is only offered in the U.K. or Thailand so he paid $12,000 to attend the two week course in U.K. The Board of Referees made no errors in fact or law, and there is no justification to interfere in its decision. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 66812 Full Text of Decision 66812

The claimant along with several other millrights travelled to Las Vegas for a week to attend a specialty course to qualify them for installation or maintenance of General Electric turbines. The union's counsel invited the Umpire to give a broad interpretaion of the seven day rule given that completion of the course would enable the claimants to conduct a better job search.

Decision 65708 Full Text of Decision 65708

The claimant had been out of the country to take a course required for his new employment. It has been held in a number of cases that, unless a claimant falls under the exceptions provided in section 55 of the Regulations, there has to be a disqualification for the period during which the claimant is out of the country. Therefore, the Umpire found that the Board erred in its conclusion that the claimant had to do what was required of him to qualify for his job and that he should be entitled to his benefits. The Commission's decision was restored.

Decision 27413 Full Text of Decision 27413

Claimant is precluded from receiving UI both by reason of 26(1), not referred to course, and 32(b). Parliament decided upon a very strict approach for persons outside of Canada. I do not see how it is open to an Umpire to attempt to interpret 32(b) in a broad and generous manner.

Decision 16130A Full Text of Decision 16130A

Spends 4 weeks in the United States to take a course not offered in Canada in order to comply with the requirements of his profession. Section 32 is specific and does not tolerate any exceptions.

Decision 26305 Full Text of Decision 26305

The Commission says that there is no power to act retroactively and counsel referred to ss. 26(2) and 26(8), but I am unable to agree that there is any statutory prohibition from retroactive action in approving courses of instruction.

Decision 25584 Full Text of Decision 25584

This case should demonstrate to the CEIC the abusive nature of its processes for referral to courses when a claimant, who knows his employment is about to terminate, cannot obtain a referral either in advance of his employment terminating or retroactively thereafter even if the course has commenced.