Summary of Issue: Violation

Decision A0365.11 Full Text of Decision A0365.11

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

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

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

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.

Decision 75763 Full Text of Decision 75763

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

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

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.

Decision 71839 Full Text of Decision 71839

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

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

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

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

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

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.