Summary of Issue: Contract Renewed

Decision A151.16 Full Text of Decision A151.16

The claimant is a teacher and it was determined that she did not meet the requirements of subsection 33(2) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, to be entitled to employment insurance benefits during the summer non-teaching period. The applicant signed a new contract for the following school year the same day that her contract ended. There was no severance of the employment relationship. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Decision A0510.14 Full Text of Decision A0510.14

The Court concluded that the claimant was not eligible as a teacher to EI benefits during the period of the summer vacation per section 33 of the EIR. Facts have shown that there has been no definitive break of the employment relationship and that the claimant was not unemployed status. The claimant was employed as a teacher until the end of the school year on June 28, 2012. The following day she applied for EI benefits. On July 11, 2012 she entered into a subsequent teaching contract for the upcoming school year and this contract was made effective on July 1, 2012 until June 30, 2013. The teacher was not entitled to EI benefits during the summer non-teaching period as she had entered into a teaching contract a few days after the previous year’s contract had ended. The decision of the Appeal Division of the SST on Oct. 16, 2014 was unfavourable to the claimant. She was not unemployed during the summer non-teaching period and therefore she did not experience an interruption of earnings despite the fact that she did not receive any actual salary during the summer non-teaching months. Application for judicial review dismissed.

Decision 68344 Full Text of Decision 68344

The CUB applies to 27 New Brunswick teachers who had annual contracts as replacement teachers and whose contracts became permanent contracts. Had the claimant's contract of employment for teaching terminated within the meaning of paragraph 33(2)(a) of the Regulations? The answer does not depend on the stipulation of a termination date in the contract. The question is whether there is a veritable break in the continuity of the teacher's employment. There was no break, veritable or otherwise, in the continuity of the claimant's employment. See also CUBs 68342 and 68343.

Decision A0172.05 Full Text of Decision A0172.05

This decision involves three part-time Québec teachers engaged with the same school board who sought regular benefits for the summer of 2003 when their contracts terminated at the end of June but who were advised of new contracts for the coming new school year and in effect signed new contracts to begin teaching in late August 2003. The issue is their disentitlement to benefit under section 33(2) of the EI Regulations. The Court in a very comprehensive decision taking into account several past Court decisions, the claimants' collective agreement and the definition of school year in Quebec concluded that there was no real rupture in the continuity of the claimants' employments with their school board and as a consequence it is not possible to conclude that their contrats of employment in teaching had terminated. The Court concluded that the claimants did not meet the exception provided for in section 33(2)(a) of the Regulations. The decisions taken into account by the Court are: Stone (A-367-04), Oliver (A-811-00), Ying (A-101-98), Bishop (A-151-01) and Partridge (A-367-04). The Supreme Court on October 12, 2006 refused the claimants' application for leave to appeal.

Decision A-0261.05 Full Text of Decision A-0261.05

On 26 February 2004, the claimant signed a part-time teaching contract that ended on 23 June 2004. On 30 June 2004, she signed a new full-time teaching contract for the 2004-2005 school year. Citing the Stone (A-367-04), Bishop (A-151-01), Partridge (A-704-97), and Oliver et al (A-811-01) decisions, the Court ruled that a review of teachers's terms of employment could not rely only on contract start and end dates to determine whether a contract had ended under the terms of Regulation 33(2)a). Since the claimant had signed a full-time teaching contract on 30 June 2004 for the 2004-2005 school year, the Court ruled that the continuity of employment was not severed during the 2004 summer period.

Decision A-0367.04 Full Text of Decision A-0367.04

The Court suggested nine factors to be taken into account to determine if there was a veritable break in the continuity of the employment for the purpose of Regulation 33(2)(a). The Court also warned that this list is no exhaustive, that it should not be applied systematically and, that the circumstances of each case should be carefully weighed. The nine factors to be taken into account are: The length of the employment record; the customs and practices of the teaching field in issue; the receipt of compensation during the non-teaching period; the terms of the written employment contract, if any; the employer's method of recalling the claimant; the record of employment form completed by the employer; other evidence of outward recognition by the employer; and the understanding between the claimant and the employer and the respective duration of the non-teaching period. See also decision A-368-04 (Stone)

Decision 67104 Full Text of Decision 67104

This case is similar to 8 others, CUBs 67096 to 67104. Before the end of the claimant's teaching contract, the claimant received and accepted an offer of employment for the upcoming school year. That offer was confirmed by the claimant's return to her position for the following school year. The Board could not find that the contract had terminated within the meaning of section 33(2)(a) of the Employment Insurance Regulations.

Decision 65780 Full Text of Decision 65780

Claimant accepted an offer to be a regular teacher on July 5, 2005 for the new school year starting August 29, 2005. Although a written contract was not signed until October 2005, it does not change the fact that when the claimant accepted the offer of employment, a legal contract of employment has existed between the claimant and the employer.

Decision 56778 Full Text of Decision 56778

Claimant works as a music teacher and is expected to return the following year. July and August are a period of layoff but are not a period of unemployment. No termination of employment. No evidence that he was employed on a casual or substitute basis. Held that he was not entitled under EIR 33(2)(a). Commission appeal allowed.

Decision A-0664.01 Full Text of Decision A-0664.01

The claimants/teachers had probationary contracts of employment ending at the end of the school year. They entered into new contracts for the following school year prior to end of the school year or shortly thereafter. The Umpire determined that the claimants did not qualify under the exemption of paragraph 33(2)(a) of the EI Regulations and concluded that they were not unemployed and that there was no severance of the employer/employee relationship. The Federal Court of Appeal found that all claimants who had their contracts renewed before their probationary contracts expired were not unemployed. N.B. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the applications for leave to appeal.

Decision A-0811.00 Full Text of Decision A-0811.00

The claimants/teachers had probationary contracts of employment ending at the end of the school year. They entered into new contracts for the following school year prior to end of the school year or shortly thereafter. The Umpire determined that the claimants did not qualify under the exemption of paragraph 33(2)(a) of the EI Regulations and concluded that they were not unemployed and that there was no severance of the employer/employee relationship. The Federal Court of Appeal found that all claimants who had their contracts renewed before their probationary contracts expired were not unemployed. N.B. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the applications for leave to appeal.

Decision A-0151.01 Full Text of Decision A-0151.01

Relying on the FCA decision in Partridge (A-0704.97), the Court came to the conclusion that the claimant's payments of hold-back pay during the summer months meant that he still had a contract of employment during those months. The Court also distinguished the case of Ying (A-0101.98) on the basis that in Ying, there was no summer hold-back pay and that there was a break of time and legal continuity between the original teaching contract and the renewal contract. It also found that the claimant was still employed as evidenced by the hold-back pay paid during the summer months.

Decision 50649 Full Text of Decision 50649

Claimant was given a new contract in June before the expiry of the current one with an effective date in the following September. Commission determined that there had not been a termination in contract. Distinguishing the case from the FCA decision in Ying (A-0101.98), Umpire held that claimant must be considered as being bound by an employment and that he was under this status during the months of July and August, notwithstanding the fact that the "effective dates" might only be in September.

Decision 70467 Full Text of Decision 70467

After working as a part-time primary school teacher from August 2006 to June 2007, the claimant indicated that he received and accepted an offer of employment in teaching on June 15, 2007 for the 2007-2008 school year. The Board found that the claimant was eligible to receive benefits because he was a part-time teacher. The Umpire, referring to previous case law stated that a part-time contract is not synonymous with teaching on a "casual or substitute basis". He concluded that the facts in the docket do not show that the working relationship was severed between the teaching contracts for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, and that the claimant did not satisfy any of the conditions set out in section 33(2) of the Regulations.

Decision 29338 Full Text of Decision 29338

Claimant was employed as a half-time teacher during the 1992-93 school year. Her contract was renewed. If one renews one's employment contract before the expiry date of a current contract it cannot be said that one's contract of employment for teaching has terminated.

Decision 29068 Full Text of Decision 29068

A 9 hour weekly contract ending at the end of June 91 and renewed as of 1-7-91. Retroactive decision resulting in an overpayment. Ss. 46.1(2) applies and prevents the payment of benefits unless the claimant can avail herself of one of the exceptions, which is not the case in the present instance.