Decision 15799
Full Text of Decision 15799
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1049.88
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision A-1049.88
Full Text of Decision A-1049.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
Summary:
As per Umpire, once an antedate has been granted, the CEIC is not empowered to disentitle a claimant by reason of non-availability. This decision appears erroneous. Once an antedate has been granted, the CEIC must determine a claimant's eligibility.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision A-0175.87
Full Text of Decision A-0175.87
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
Summary:
Antedate denied by Board because claimant was not available for work. It is trite law that what a Board or Umpire must deal with is the decision that the Commission made, not that which it might or should have made. Availability had nothing at all to do with antedating.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Decision A-0644.93
Full Text of Decision A-0644.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
courses |
|
Summary:
Student, knowing that she would not be available, did not make her claim until her studies were completed; only 6 insurable weeks remained instead of the 14 required to establish a benefit claim. Asked for 8 weeks antidate. Stated that she was not negligent and this kind of ignorance is acceptable. Quashed in F.C.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Decision A-0024.01
Full Text of Decision A-0024.01
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
earnings |
|
Summary:
The claimant, after being told that he would not be entitled to benefits and thus assuming that he did not have to file, delayed making his claim until the allocation of his severance pay had ended. The Court found that reliance on legal advice is not good cause. A claim for EI should be made immediately and not when an individual is payable.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Decision A-1261.83
Full Text of Decision A-1261.83
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
earnings |
|
Summary:
Claimant ceased work in 9-80 and continued to receive monthly salary until 4-81. He learned later this was a retiring allowance and not earnings. Ignorance or mistake induced by employer's representations is not good cause as per PIROTTE.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision A-1865.83
Full Text of Decision A-1865.83
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
employed |
|
Summary:
If he had mistakenly concluded that his work was full-time and had decided not to apply for UI because of this mistake, such an error might possibly provide a basis for relief under 20(4). [p. 17]
Retired after 38 years and immediately found part-time employment which he left 6 months later. Requests antedate to have rate based on full-time earnings. The fact that he was employed only part-time is not good cause.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|