Decision 76259
Full Text of Decision 76259
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
|
Summary:
The claimant's last day work was September 3, 2008 and filed her initial claim for benefits on October 27, 2008. The claimant requested to have her claim antedated to September 7, 2008 and the Commission has accepted. .The claimant didn’t meet the criteria of the Extended Benefits for Long Tenured worker measure (Bill C-50), because her claim was established prior to January 4, 2009. Unfortunately, the claimant's severance package ended only in February 2009 nothing changes the fact that her claim began on September 7, 2008. A definition of a long-tenured worker is someone who meets the 3 identified criteria, one of them being, the claim must start on or after January 4, 2009, but no later than "September 11, 2010. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 75599
Full Text of Decision 75599
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial claim effective July 19, 2009 for benefits and sought additional benefits under Bill C-50 as a long tenured worker. The Commission held that pursuant to subsection 12(2.1) of the Act, the claimant did not qualify for the additional benefits because she did not contribute at least 30% of the maximum premiums for 7 out of the 10 years preceding the beginning of her benefit period. The issue has to do with when the ‘years' are calculated. The Commission's position is that the counting of the 7 prior years begins only in 2008 and not 2009. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision A0252.11
Full Text of Decision A0252.11
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period effective March 15, 2009. The Commission determined that the claimant did not qualify for additional weeks of benefits under Pilot Project # 14 because an active return to work plan was not in place by August 23, 2009 as required under 77.91(3)(c) of the EIR for benefit periods commencing before May 31, 2009. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review. The FCA held where the claimant’s benefit period began before May 31, 2009, Pilot Project # 14 is only available where the active return to work plan is in place before August 23, 2009 and that there is no power to forgive lateness in filing an active return to work plan where there is good cause for the delay.
Decision A0227.11
Full Text of Decision A0227.11
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
Pilot Project No. 14 found in section 77.91(3)(iii) of the EIR provides an extension of a claimant’s benefit period and the number of weeks of benefits payable to qualified claimants who undertake long-term training. The Commission found that the claimant did not meet the criteria under Pilot Project No. 14 because her training did not commence within 52 weeks of establishing her benefit period as required by law. The claimant started the program one week outside the 52-week period prescibed in subparagraph 77.91(3)(iii) of the EIR. The FCA held that the BOR and the Umpire erred in law.
Adjudicators are permitted neither to re-write legislation nor to interpret it in manner that is contrary to its plain meaning.
Decision 74331
Full Text of Decision 74331
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
According to the Commission, the claimant is not eligible for extended benefits under the Pilot Project No. 14, “Career Transition Program” since he does not meet all of the criteria set out in the Regulations. During the 260 week period before the beginning of his benefits period which commenced on February 1, 2009, the claimant had received more than 36 weeks of E.I. benefits, and therefore did not qualify. The claimant does not base his appeal on legal grounds, but claims that persons with disabilities such as his should be eligible. The Board has no authority to amend the requirements of the legislation, neither does an Umpire. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
eligibility to benefits |
|
|
Decision 74218
Full Text of Decision 74218
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
The claimant was denied eligibility as a long-tenured worker to participate in the Career Transition Program.. The appeal to the Board of Referees was dismissed. The claimant now appeals before the Umpire claiming that the Board made an error of fact. The Pilot Project No. 14 applies in respect of every claimant whose benefits period is established in the period beginning on January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010. The appellant applied for regular EI Benefits on October 20, 2008. The appellant's benefit claim is clearly prior to the date stipulated in the legislation. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.