Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision 76507 Full Text of Decision 76507

The claimant established a benefit period on December 16, 2007. The claimant did not receive benefits until August 22, 2009 by reason of the allocation of a severance pay. Her benefit period was extended to the maximum period provided under section 10 (14) of the Employment Insurance Act. In the end, at the time where the claimant started receiving benefits 89 weeks of her benefit period had elapsed and she was eligible to receive benefits only for the balance of the 104 weeks. Unfortunately, the Umpire, nor the BOR and nor the Commission has the authority to amend the law. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76063 Full Text of Decision 76063

The claimant filed a claim for benefits effective February 21, 2010. The Commission determined that the claimant had only accumulated 17 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period which ran from February 22, 2009 to February 20, 2010. The claimant had an E.I benefit period established as of September 6, 2008 and received 15 weeks of sickness benefits. The claimant stated that health reasons prevented him from working from September 6, 2008 to February 4, 2010. On May 11, 2010, the BOR allowed the claimant’s appeal by allowing the qualifying period to be extended to February 20, 2008. The Commission argued that according to Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act stipulate that a qualifying period cannot be extended beyond a preceding benefit period. The appeal by the Commission’s decision is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision 68048 Full Text of Decision 68048

To be eligible for an extension of the benefit period under paragraph 10(10)(b) of the EI Act, the earnings must have been paid because of the complete severance of the relationship with the employer. In this case there has been no complete severance as the claimant was re-instated by his employer some two years later. The claimant sought full benefits by way of extension between the end of the allocation of earnings and the date of re-instatement.

Decision 31280 Full Text of Decision 31280

Following her precautionary cessation of work (maternity), the beneficiary requested that her benefit period be extended. The request was denied. The compensation received by the beneficiary for precautionary cessation of work would not have prevented benefits from being paid (s. 9(7)(d) of the Act).

Decision S-1059.84

Parliament's desire to benefit both inmates and injured workers is in the context of an Act that, for legislative policy reasons, grants broader or narrower benefits to different classes of claimants.

Decision 11239 Full Text of Decision 11239

As per ss.20(7), a claimant's benefit period may only be extended in certain particular circumstances, namely incarceration in gaol or receipt of workmen's compensation. Claimant did not fit into either of these. Neither the CEIC, Board nor I can changethe Act.

Decision 11028 Full Text of Decision 11028

It is period that is extended. This does not necessarily entitle claimant to benefit for entire extended portion; other requirements to be met in addition to being unemployed. I therefore do not see why 9(7) should be narrowly construed.

Decision 10717 Full Text of Decision 10717

Benefit payments interrupted due to pregnancy and confinement. 37 weeks paid in total during benefit period. Unfair treatment alleged under Bill of Rights and Human Rights as compared to prisoners whose benefit periods may be extended under 20(7).