Decision T-0744.95
Full Text of Decision T-0744.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
The Court decided that ss. 11(7) is discriminatory because it makes an unlawful distinction based on family situation in the provision of services, contrary to the CHRA, by excluding from receiving extended benefits the parents of children who, because of their health, need extended care, solely because they come home before the age of six months. Therefore, unless Parliament acts within the specified time limit, the Commission will have to stop applying par. 11(7)(a) as a prerequisite for the 15 weeks of extended benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
charter |
|
|
Decision 30977
Full Text of Decision 30977
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
Both parts of ss.11(7) must be met for the additional five weeks of parental benefits to be granted. Under the principles of legislative drafting, the word "and" requires both parts of the section to be met in order to fall within its ambit.
Decision 25505
Full Text of Decision 25505
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
It is clear that the Board made an error of law. It is obvious that the requirements of both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 11(7) must be met because at the end of paragraph (a) the word "and" appears, indicating that the requirements are conjunctive: that is, they must both be met.
Decision 24413
Full Text of Decision 24413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
Although the Act clearly states that both criteria must be met, the literature does not include the word "and" between the two requirements. The Board found that the claimant had been severely misled and allowed 5 additional weeks of parental benefits. The Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Decision 24267
Full Text of Decision 24267
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
Baby was released from hospital and arrived at home when less than 4 months old. He was re-admitted to hospital when 10 days short of becoming 6 months old and on numerous occasions after. Due to the fact the child arrived at home at an age under 6 months, the claimant is not entitled to extended benefits.
Decision 23817
Full Text of Decision 23817
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
This was an attempt to apply the provisions of para. 11(7)(b), but a close examination of s. 11, read as a whole, reveals that the word "and" appears at the end of para. 11(7)(a), therefore making the two paragraphs conjunctive, not alternative, and only applicable to children over 6 months of age.
Decision 21499
Full Text of Decision 21499
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
Newborn aged 3 months at homecoming; the insured argues para. 11(7) discriminates against handicapped children; argument dismissed: clause 15 of the Charter does not concern the rights of handicapped children but the right to benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
charter |
|
|
Decision 20712
Full Text of Decision 20712
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Summary:
The maximum of 10 weeks may be extended under ss. 11(7). However, the child was only 4 3/4 months old on the date of adoption and less than 6 months old when she actually arrived at claimant's home from Romania. Consequently, claimant is not legally entitled to the extra 5 weeks.
