Decision 22405
Full Text of Decision 22405
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
charter |
legislation |
|
Summary:
A decision as to whether to refer one to a course is discretionary with the CEIC and cannot be demanded as of right. Hence, I cannot accept that s.26 somehow discriminates against claimant as to her rights under ss.15(1) of the Charter. Any distinction relates to legitimate qualification standards.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision 22301
Full Text of Decision 22301
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
charter |
legislation |
|
Summary:
I am not persuaded that s.26 of the UI Act infringes any right protected by s.15(1) of the Charter. The distinctions between claimants referred and not referred relate to legitimate qualification standards and have nothing to do with distinctions based on characteristics of individuals or groups.
Decision A-0694.86
Full Text of Decision A-0694.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
charter |
legislation |
|
Summary:
Ss. 51(2.1) ruled valid. Power conferred under ss. 26(2) of the Act examined. According to dissenting opinion, a 6-week extension is permissible or none at all. We cannot limit it to 3 weeks.
