Summary of Issue: Maximum Payable

Decision 53893 Full Text of Decision 53893

The scheduled due date of the claimant's baby was January 19, 2001 but she arrived prematurely on October 12, 2000 and she was placed in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for 3 months. Claimant submitted that since she was unable to take her daughter home until Jan. 8, 2001, she should be given 35 weeks of parental benefits, not 10 weeks. Argument rejected. The triggering event for entitlement to 35 weeks of parental leave is the birth of the child, not when the child was placed in the parent's hands.

Decision 52985 Full Text of Decision 52985

Original birth date was to be 4-01-2001 but due to complications, an emergency caesarean section had to be held on 30-12-2000. Claimant entitled to 10 weeks of parental benefits rather than the 35 weeks according to the Budget Implementation Act, 2000. While highly sympathetic, the appeal was dismissed by umpire: any court has a duty to apply the law as it perceives it and not to ignore the plain meaning of the legislation it is called upon to deal with.

Decision 52792 Full Text of Decision 52792

Claimant entitled to a maximum of 10 weeks of parental benefits and not the 35 weeks set out in Bill C-32. She appeals on the grounds that the specific provision infringes her right to equality as guaranteed by the Charter. Relying on the FCA decision in Nishri (A-0216.96), the umpire held that the cut-off date of Dec. 31, 2000 was simply a criteria selected by Parliament for determining whether a claimant will be governed by the old rules or the new rules and that it was not based on any personal characteristic of the claimant. Appeal dismissed.

Decision 23770 Full Text of Decision 23770

In 4-92, claimant filed an initial claim for adoption benefits. At the time of her application, relevant para. 11(3)(b) provided for only 10 weeks of benefits. The Commission had no discretion in the circumstances of this case.

Decision 63678 Full Text of Decision 63678

The claimant's benefit period could not be extended beyond 67 weeks from the date it was established even if this results in the claimant losing 10 weeks of parental benefits.

Decision 63250 Full Text of Decision 63250

The claimant received 15 weeks of maternity and 32 weeks of parental benefits, then applied for sickness benefits. The Commission determined that the claimant could receive her full 35 weeks of parental benefits when her claim would expire as provided in subsection 12(5) of the Employment Insurance Act, but could not be eligible for sickness benefits because she could not show that, if it was not for her illness, she would be available for work. The Umpire concluded that the claimant was attempting to extend her benefit period pursuant to subsection 10(13) of the Act and agreed with the Commission's position.

Decision 77258 Full Text of Decision 77258

The claimant was in receipt of benefits and received 15 weeks of maternity and 35 weeks of parental benefits. The last week paid was on February 28, 2010. She applied for additional benefits, on December 11, 2009, for the official adoption of two children, age two and five. The Commission refused since it had already paid out the full amount of parental benefits and could find no insurable hours which would allow her to have additional benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision T2627.14 Full Text of Decision T2627.14

Claimant argues that providing a single set of EI parental benefits to parents of twins is discriminatory under the CHRA. The claimant stayed her appeal at the SST-AD and had it dismissed based on the outcome in Martin. She claims this position is contrary to the actions of the Umpire, who in granting her stay indicated that once Martin was determined, the Applicant could take the appropriate legal steps to resolve her case. FCA agrees that the claimant did not receive a final determination regarding discrimination at the SST-AD. However, the FCA disagrees that her human rights issues have not been addressed. Despite the errors in the report regarding finality and other redress procedures, the decision in Martin in and of itself provides reasonable justification not to deal with the claimant’s complaint. The application of the claimant was dismissed.

Decision A0243.11 Full Text of Decision A0243.11

On April 21, 2009, Mr. Martin’s (claimant) spouse gave birth to twin girls. The claimant’s spouse applied online for 35 weeks parental benefits. The claimant also submitted an online application for 35 weeks of parental benefits but requested that his claim be considered separately from his spouse, which had already been processed and accepted. The Commission denied the claimant’s application as his spouse had already been granted the maximum 35 weeks of parental benefits under the EIA. The claimant appealed the decision alleging that the EIA actually provided for 35 weeks of parental benefits to be paid to both parents in the event of twins. The FCA concluded that the EIA cannot be interpreted to allow each parent of twins to receive 35 weeks of parental benefits.