Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision A0026.09 Full Text of Decision A0026.09

The claimants (Arkinstall, Dorais, Wills and Hummel) were all teachers employed on a term certain basis. During the period of September 2006 to January 2007, the claimant, Dorais, was a teacher on call. The claimants applied for EI benefits for various non-teaching periods. The Commission denied their claims on the basis that they were teachers and were not entitled to benefits during non-teaching periods. The BOR concluded that although the claimants' contracts of employment had not terminated, they were entitled to EI benefits because they were casual or substitute teachers within the meaning of s. 33(2)(b) of the EIR. The Umpire sat aside the BOR's decisions, concluding that the claimants were not entitled to EI benefits during non-teaching periods because they were, at all times, employed in a continuous and pre-determined way which could not be considered casual or substitute teaching. The FCA ruled that the Umpire made no reviewable error and that the claimants, whose contracts had not terminated, were not casual or substitute teachers within the meaning of s. 33(2)(b) of the EIR. Application for judicial review dismissed. Similar cases: A0027.09, A0028.09 and A0029.09.

Decision A-0456.02 Full Text of Decision A-0456.02

The Court stated that it is theoretically possible that a teacher may have a period of employment as a supply teacher that is sufficiently regular that it cannot be said to be "employment on a casual or substitute basis". However, the mere existence of a term teaching contract covering a particular period does not necessarily deprive a person of the benefit of paragraph 33(2)(b) for that period.

Decision 54171 Full Text of Decision 54171

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0456.02

Decision 39587 Full Text of Decision 39587

Umpire concluded that, in this case, paragraph 46.1(2)(b) applied because the claimant was not paid during the non-teaching period and, although there was a teaching contract, it was for casual and substitute work. Umpire allowed the claimant’s appeal regarding her entitlement to benefits for the non-teaching periods. **Commission decided to pursue an appeal before the FCA, which agreed that Umpire had erred in law. Umpire’s decision was not consistent with the jurisprudence established in this regard.

Decision A-0512.95 Full Text of Decision A-0512.95

FCA maintained that ss. 46.1(2) is very badly worded, a rational analysis of the terms leading to the conclusion that the claimants who, during the vacation period in question, were still under contract, were covered by subparagraph (a), particularly since their employment in teaching, regardless of the temporary and precarious nature of their contracts, was continuous and predetermined, and not casual or supply in nature within the meaning of subparagraph (b).

Decision A-0511.95 Full Text of Decision A-0511.95

Case identical to that of Louise Grenier. See summary indexed under A-0512.95

Decision 28420 Full Text of Decision 28420

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0511.95

Decision 23306 Full Text of Decision 23306

Worked as substitute from 22-10-91 to 23-3-92 and as casual from 23-3-92 to 30-6-92. The issue is whether claimant's employment from 23-3-92 to 30-6-92 was casual. If it was casual then claimant is entitled to benefits; if it was not, then he is not entitled to benefits.

Decision 18796 Full Text of Decision 18796

Teacher on maternity leave from 12-87. Maternity UI paid. The school board did not rehire her until 9-88. She collected regular UI from 1-5 to 30-6-88 while employed as substitute. Properly disentitled from 1-7-88. Contract not terminated. No discrimination based on pregnancy.

Decision 17053 Full Text of Decision 17053

Refer to: A-0475.89

Decision A-0475.89 Full Text of Decision A-0475.89

2-year contract commencing 9-86 to teach one semester a year, Sept. to Jan. Employed as substitute from 1-88. Disentitled as of 27-6-88. 2-year contract not terminated. As per Umpire, it suffices that one exception applies: 46.1(2)(b). Umpire's finding not to be disturbed.

Decision 17988 Full Text of Decision 17988

Ontario teacher with yearly contract for 1 semester a year. He therefore worked from 1-9 to 31-1 as per his contract. In addition, he did substitute teaching after 31-1. The Board found that he met reg. 46.1. This would appear to be erroneous in law. Nodecision given.

Decision 16776 Full Text of Decision 16776

While reg. 46.1(2)(b) creates an exception for casual teachers, that exception refers to employment during one's qualifying period. If claimant's right to benefits is founded on casual employment, then UI may be paid in summer. Claimant's right here arises out of full-time work.

Decision 16682 Full Text of Decision 16682

Full-time teacher who took one year's leave, from 9-87 to 9-88. Ineligible as from 7-88 in accordance with Reg. 46.1, as the contract had not ended. Also stated that she occasionally worked elsewhere in teaching during her leave.

Decision 11619 Full Text of Decision 11619

Regular teacher who, while on leave, worked as substitute for the month of June and contended she came within 46.1(2)(b). The assertion is irrelevant because, during her qualifying period, she was a full-time teacher and not merely casual or substitute.