Decision A0212.10
Full Text of Decision A0212.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was denied EI benefits on the basis that he had only accumulated 33 of the required 630 hours of insurable employment. In dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, the FCA noted that the BOR had suggested to the claimant that he avail himself of the antedating provisions. Since this issue had not been raised before the Umpire nor was it raised before the FCA, the Court indicated that it could not review it.
Decision 75780
Full Text of Decision 75780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant failed to accumulate a sufficient number of insurable hours to qualify for benefits. The claimant appealed the ruling alleging that, because of illness and a car accident, she had a period of unemployment. It is noted the claimant was employed when involved in an accident, injured and in receipt of her full entitlement of sickness benefits. As I explained to her son who was representing her, the sickness benefits having been paid, this interrupted the benefit period which, for all purposes, precluded her from acquiring sufficient insurable hours of employment during that period to qualify for benefits. During that period, she had accumulated 225 hours but required 600 insurable hours. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A0509.09
Full Text of Decision A0509.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission denied the claimant's application for EI benefits on the basis that he had not accumulated 700 insurable hours as required under s. 7(2) of the EIA. The Umpire allowed the claimant's appeal on the ground that the BOR had based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact, i.e. there was an error in the calculations of the number of insurable hours worked by the claimant. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review finding that the Umpire was under the wrong impression that the Commission had not taken into account hours worked during the entire relevant period of time.
Decision 74886
Full Text of Decision 74886
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant did not have a sufficient number of insurable hours of employment during her qualifying period. Her representative requested and extension of her qualifying period by 52 weeks - time she was on WSI and the 18 weeks granted by the Commission. The Board finds as fact that the claimant was not a new entrant or re-entrant because she had 490 hours of insurable hours in the 52 weeks preceding the qualifying period. The claimant's residence is Hamilton with the rate of unemployment in her region, the number of hours needed to qualify for regular benefits in her case is 595 hours. The appeal by the claimant is by the Umpire.
Decision 72851
Full Text of Decision 72851
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a claim for benefits in June 27, 2008 and submitted a number of Records of Employment showing that he accumulated a total of 542 hours of insurable employment. The Commission determined that the claimant did not accumulate the number of insurable hours employment required to have a benefit period established, as he needed 700 hours. Claimant said that he lived away from home (Charlevoix) when he was working and knew he wouldn¿t qualify for EI in Quebec City as he lives with his girlfriend in Quebec City. The Commissions appeal is allowed as per the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
address of normal place of residence |
change |
|
Decision A-0027.04
Full Text of Decision A-0027.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been imposed an overpayment after his employment was found to be not insurable. The Court found that the Umpire erred in finding the claimant was entitled to benefits since the claimant had not accumulated the 700 hours required.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision 56750B
Full Text of Decision 56750B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0027.04
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision 56663
Full Text of Decision 56663
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant ceased his employment due to illness and filed a claim with 1,016 hours of insurable employment while requiring 1,138 hours because of a previous minor violation. The BOR allowed the claim based on the new entrant provision and completly ignored section 153.1 of the EIA which provides that a claimant upon whom a violation has been imposed will not qualify for special benefits unless he has accumulated an increase number of hours of insurable employment. Held by Umpire that BOR ignored the legislation and the Commission appeal was allowed.
Decision 56070
Full Text of Decision 56070
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The legislation provides for an increase in the hours required by a claimant who accumulates one or more violations. For a violation not to be taken into account, it is not just a matter of filing two claims. The two claims must be received and established taking the increase in hours into account.
Decision 55620
Full Text of Decision 55620
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant required 1,138 hours of insurable employment because of a violation while he had accumulated only 1,031 hours. Claimant argued that the violation should not be taken into account since it resulted from not declaring earnings during the period from Sept. 22 to Oct. 5, 1996 and that this was more than 260 weeks prior to his claim filed on Nov. 13, 2001. Since the violation was issued on Oct. 17, 1997, umpire held that the 260 weeks started running from that date and was therefore still affecting the number of hours required to establish a claim when the claimant filed his claim on Nov. 13, 2001.
Decision 55147
Full Text of Decision 55147
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant applied for maternity and parental benefits with a total of 601 hours of insurable employment. She was considered as being a re-entrant and, in addition, there had been a violation noted in her file within the 260 weeks prior to filing her claim. Number of hours required were increased to 1,138 hours. She stated that she should benefit from Reg.93(1) and qualify with 600 hours only, notwithstanding SS. 153.1(3) of the Act which stipulates that the Reg. may not provide special benefits to persons who are subject to an increase in the number of hours of insurable employment required. Argument dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A-0188.00
Full Text of Decision A-0188.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant wanted the Court to take into account the hours in which she claimed that she worked and for which she should have been paid, but which are the subject of as yet undecided grievances. Such hours cannot be included at this point. If the grievances are eventually allowed, the Commission can reopen the claimant's file.
Decision 47458
Full Text of Decision 47458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0188.00
Decision 45834
Full Text of Decision 45834
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant had accumulated only 548 of the 560 hours of insurable employment required. She alleged before the BOR that she had been unable to accumulate the required hours for reasons beyond her control, namely the ice storm. The BOR, receptive to this argument, decided to attribute an additional 36 hours to her. Error of law, according to the Umpire. The BOR does not have the jurisdiction to amend the Act or to interpret its requirements.
Decision 41543
Full Text of Decision 41543
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Claimants did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period to establish a claim. Umpire stated that the determination of whether a claimant has had the required number of hours insurable employment during the qualifying period clearly involves a determination as to how many hours the insured person has had in an insurable employment. He concluded that the issue involved in these appeals is not one that falls within the jurisdicition of the BOR and ruled that the matters will be referred back to the Commission which is directed to request rulings from the Department of National Revenue.**Commission requested a judicial review before the FCA because the Umpire erred in law in ruling as he did, the issue was one of insufficient hours of insurable employment and not one of insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 41366
Full Text of Decision 41366
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that it was not fair to convert his hours worked, 44 hours per week, and take into account only 35 hours per week under the Regulations, giving him only 735 hours of insurable employment when 910 hours were required. BOR reversed the Commission’s decision and allowed 44 hours per week. Umpire stated that it was the government that had chosen the rule of 35 hours, it being the average number of hours currently worked in Canada. He found that section 94.1 of the Regulations had been applied correctly and that BOR had erred in law in forgetting the relevant rules in the Act and Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 39869
Full Text of Decision 39869
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Summary:
While applying a fixed work week of 35 hours for the necessary conversion instead of taking the actual hours worked may appear unjust, the Commission, BOR and Umpire have no authority to change the provisions of EIR 94.1.
Decision 75855
Full Text of Decision 75855
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
BPNE |
|
Summary:
The claimant was denied maternity benefits by the Commission’s. The claimant stated in the documentation that she was advised by her employer that she had 721 insurable hours. However the evidence shows that for the relevant period that information was erroneous. The claimant had accumulated only 572 hours during her qualifying period. The legislation requires a total of 600 hours of insurable earnings for eligibility to maternity benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| maternity benefits |
qualification requirement |
insufficient insurable hours |
|
Decision 77053
Full Text of Decision 77053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
BPNE |
|
Summary:
The claimant applied for benefits on July 23, 2010. During his qualifying period, he accumulated only 431 employment insurable hours. At the time of his application,there was an unemployment rate of 11% in his region. Prior to July, 2010, the claimant benefited from an extended benefit period which was interrupted by a working period between November 2009 and January 26, 2010. In January, he renewed his existing claim and received benefit until July. At the time of the claimant's lay off in January 2010, the unemployment rate in his region was 14.1% and the required number of insurable hours to qualify for benefits was 420. If the claimant had been eligible to establish a new claim in January, he would have been eligible for benefits. However, by the time where is prior benefit period expired, the new rate of unemployment of 11% required 525 hours to qualify for benefits. The BOR noted that it did not have any discretion in this matter. The law must be applied as it stands. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Decision 75200A
Full Text of Decision 75200A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
BPNE |
|
Summary:
The claimant had accumulated 406 hours between September 28, 2008 and September 26, 2009. The BOR found that the claimant did not have sufficient hours as she needed 420 hours under s. 7(2)(b) of the EIA. The claimant could have acquired sufficient hours for benefits except for the fact that she suffered from an allergy from working in the fish plant because she was allergic to crab. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A-0281.01
Full Text of Decision A-0281.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
charter |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a part-time nurse, did not accumulate enough hours to qualify for EI regular or maternity benefits. Umpire held that eligibility requirements had the effect of discriminating against parents/part-time female workers with children, thereby contravening section 15 of the Canadian Charter. The Federal Court of Appeal found that these requirements do not violate the Charter and explains and acknowledges the advantages of the hours-based system, the need for entrance requirements and the ameliorative purpose of the scheme for women. The Court concludes that Parliament is the authority to be relied upon when it comes to a complex statutory scheme such as EI legislation and that the legislator was reasonnable in choosing the entrance requirements. Note: The application for leave to appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada on July 17, 2003.
Decision 53428
Full Text of Decision 53428
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that the Act is discriminating against students or recent students in relation to other workers. Umpire found that the claimant's disqualification results from her own decision on how to best prepare her future, not from a personal characteristic. Being a student is an activity or a state that one chooses: it does not carry any inherent and permanent quality that would make this a personal characteristic which would have been envisaged by the framers of s. 15 of the Charter.
Decision 51142
Full Text of Decision 51142
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
charter |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0281.01
Decision A0386.11
Full Text of Decision A0386.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
pilot project # 13 |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed his claim for benefits on December 6, 2010. His claim was made effective on Sunday, December 5, 2010. Pilot Project 13, which had reduced the number of required insurable hours in the claimant’s region from 910 to 840, had expired on Saturday, December 4. The Commission determined the claimant had only accumulated 846 hours and therefore did not qualify for EI benefits, since the Pilot Project had expired. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review and found the claimant had not accumulated sufficient hours to qualify for EI benefits regardless of whether he applied on Friday, December 3, as found by the BOR and Umpire, or on Monday, December 6, as determined by the Commission.
Decision A0365.11
Full Text of Decision A0365.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The Commission issued three notices of violation to the claimant for failing to report earnings. In accordance with subsection 7.1(1), the number of insurable hours the claimant was required to accumulate in order to be eligible increased to 910. The claimant’s subsequent application was denied because he had only accumulated 600 hours. The Umpire found that since the Commission had not presented evidence supporting its decision to issue the notices of violation, the claimant was not required to accumulate the additional insurable hours to establish a claim. The FCA allowed the Commission’s application for judicial review and found the Umpire had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside notices of violation that had not been appealed and thus disregarded the rules of procedural fairness.
Decision 77427
Full Text of Decision 77427
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that this claimant was a new entrant pursuant to subsection 7(4) of the Act since he did not have at least 490 hours of labour force attachment in the 52 week period preceding his qualifying period. The claimant had accumulated a "subsequent violation" within the 260 weeks preceding this claim. The number of insurable hours required to qualify for benefits was increased to 1,365 hours in virtue of subsection 7.1(2) of the Act, he had accumulated 1,209 hours. It is well established that the 260 week period runs from the date when the notice of violation was issued, not from the date when the violation was committed by the claimant. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 77250
Full Text of Decision 77250
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
In his appeal to the Board of Referees, the claimant indicated that it is not fair that he is denied any benefits because he had accumulated 1,120 instead of 1,260 hours of employment between November 9, 2008 and October 31, 2009. The Commission established that the claimant was not a new entrant or re-entrant, and that as a result of one or more violations in the 260 weeks prior to making his claim for benefits, the Commission could and did invoke section 7.1(2) of the Act. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76682
Full Text of Decision 76682
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The claimant appealed a Commission decision almost four years after being notified of the decision. On 19 December 2006, the claimant was notified that he failed to declare earnings he received between 23 April and 14 May 2006 while on benefits and a penalty was imposed, along with a Notice of Violation. On 17 March 2008, the claimant was notified by letter that he provided incorrect information about starting work on 16 April 2007 and that he did not declare any earnings received from his employer. A Notice of Violation was also issued. On 25 February 2008, the claimant spoke to an Investigation and Control Officer stating that he cannot afford 50% of his benefits going to the overpayment as he has to raise 4 children. On 12 September 2010, the claimant was advised by letter that the Commission cannot pay him employment insurance benefits due to an insufficient number of insurable hours of work on account of the violation. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
applicable delays |
|
Decision 75763
Full Text of Decision 75763
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a claim for benefits and submitted two Roe. The Commission determined that the claimant did not accumulate the number of hours of insurable employment required during his qualifying period to qualify for benefits. He accumulated only 1,069 hours of employment and, because two notices of violation were previously issued to him, he had to have accumulated 1,120 hours of insurable employment to have a benefit period established. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision 75195
Full Text of Decision 75195
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The claimant worked at three different locations for a total of 512 hours of insurable employment. She lives in a region where the unemployment rate is 11.5%. The number of hours of employment increases if the claimant has accumulated a violation in the 260 weeks (five years) preceding the initial claim for Employment Insurance benefits. In fact, the claimant needed 980 hours to qualify for benefits because of two previous violations. The claimant's appeal is dismissed.
Decision 72386
Full Text of Decision 72386
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant had not accumulated the number of hours of insurable employment required to have a benefit period established. He had only accumulated 816 hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period and, because he had been issued a notice of violation, the minimum number of hours of insurable employment required to benefits is 875 hours. Because the claimant had already had a benefit period established effective June 2006, and the claimant's new qualifying period could not begin before the date on which the claimant had a previous benefit period established.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
|
|
Decision 71839
Full Text of Decision 71839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
Subsection 7.1(1) of the EIA provides that to qualify for benefits, claimants, other than new entrants or re-entrants to the labour force, have to have accumulated additional hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period if they have accumulated violations in the 260 weeks prior to filing their claim for benefits. The Act provides a table which indicates that, in the present case, the claimant required 1,400 hours of employment due to the fact that he had received a violation classified as subsequent during the 260 weeks prior to his claim. The claimant required 1,400 hours or insurable employment and he had accumulated only 1,312 hours of employment in his qualifying period. The BOR' decision is set aside and the appeal of the Commission is allowed.
Decision 69678
Full Text of Decision 69678
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The uncontested evidence established that the claimant had to be considered a claimant who was a new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force and he had accumulated a minor violation. He therefore required 1,050 hours to establish a claim and he had only accumulated 910 hours of employment in his qualifying period. The Board erred in law in applying subsection 7.1(1) of the Act to the claimant's situation when it was subsection 7.1(2) of the Act that applied. See similar case, CUB 67760.
Decision 69603
Full Text of Decision 69603
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
Under subsection 7.1(5), a violation is subsequent if the notice is sent within 260 weeks of another violation. As the claimant applied for benefits approximately one year before the subsequent violation provisions expired, he needed 1050 hours to qualify and not less, 656 or 788, as determined by the Board based on only one violation (minor or serious).
Decision 63607
Full Text of Decision 63607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The claimant had not worked the number of hours of insurable employment required because of a subsequent Notice of Violation. The Umpire stated that the fact that the Commission committed an error in its letter to the claimant advising him that he was receiving what was in fact a second Notice of Violation, does not have any incidence on the application of the Law and concluded that he had to suffer the consequences of such a violation.
Decision A-0145.04
Full Text of Decision A-0145.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
A benefit period could not be established because the claimant had not accumulated the required number of hours of insurable employment, due to a violation. The Court explained that a notice of violation must be issued for there to be an increase in the number of insurable hours required to qualify. The Court stated that the 260-week period prescribed in Subsection 7.1(1) of the Act begins on the date the notice of violation is issued.
Decision A-0534.01
Full Text of Decision A-0534.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
A benefit period could not be established because the claimant had accumulated less than the 840 hours of insurable employment required due to the accumulation of several violations. The Court explains that a claimant automatically accumulates a violation when a penalty is imposed following one of the acts mentioned in subsection 7.1(4) of the Act. The Court states there is nothing in the Act to indicate the obligation for the notice of violation to be sent by registered mail, the notice of violation as such is simply the means used by the Commission to inform the claimant of the decision rendered and to permit the claimant to contest that decision.
