Decision A-0367.04
Full Text of Decision A-0367.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract renewed |
|
|
Decision A-0261.05
Full Text of Decision A-0261.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract renewed |
|
|
Decision A-0215.03
Full Text of Decision A-0215.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was a teacher the Commission determined did not meet the exemptions applicable under subsection 33(2) of the EI Regulations. The Court found the Umpire had not been unreasonable in supporting the BOR's decision based on the limited fact-finding by the Commission.
Decision 56736
Full Text of Decision 56736
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0215.03
Decision A-0811.00
Full Text of Decision A-0811.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
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 shortly after their probationary contracts expired had no real gap in employment because they were hired for a new school year which overlaps with or immediately follows the previous one. N.B. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the applications for leave to appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
rationale |
|
|
| teaching |
contract renewed |
|
|
Decision A-0664.01
Full Text of Decision A-0664.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
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 shortly after their probationary contracts expired had no real gap in employment because they were hired for a new school year which overlaps with or immediately follows the previous one. N.B. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the applications for leave to appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract renewed |
|
|
| teaching |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 50649
Full Text of Decision 50649
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract renewed |
|
|
Decision 45419
Full Text of Decision 45419
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
In a context involving the establishment of a kindergarten program, claimant was a teacher with a C contract that had been renewed before the previous contract expired. Umpire distinguished between C contracts and annually renewable B contracts. In addition, the renewal was invalid because it contravened the collective agreement. In view of the FCA's decision in Ying (A-0101.98), the appeal was not pursued in the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
non-teaching period |
|
|
Decision A-0101.98
Full Text of Decision A-0101.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Before the end of her current teaching contract on June 30, 1996, claimant entered into a new teaching contract with the same employer to begin the following August. Court find that the facts indicate that there was termination of the claimant's of employment on June 30, 1996 and her next contract of employment did not begin until August 26, 1996. The evidence also indicates that she was not contractually entitled to any pay in respect of this period. While she signed the new contract in June, 1996, for employment commencing in August, this in our view does not mean that she was continously employed in the meantine.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
non-teaching period |
|
|
Decision 41237
Full Text of Decision 41237
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's contract as a teacher terminated on 30-06-97. On 29-05-97, he signed another contract with similar conditions of employment to begin in Sept. 1997. Under the terms of his expired contract, he was not paid for the summer months. Umpire ruled that he was entitled to receive benefits during the summer months on the basis that his contract for teaching had terminated and that there was no intention to create ongoing annual employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
non-teaching period |
|
|
Decision 38574
Full Text of Decision 38574
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Employed on a full-time basis as a school teacher from 09-92 to 30-06-93. Recalled for a half-time position commencing 09-93. Disentitled during the period from 12-07-93 to 06-09-93. Umpire concluded, she was entitled until 09-93 because in the words of s. 46.1(2)(a) of UI Reg., her contract of employment for teaching had been terminated on 30-06-93. He also noted that her old contract had not been renewed but rather, a new contract, on apparently substantially different terms was entered into on 12-07-93. **NOTE: Commission request a judicial review of this case before the Federal Court because Umpire's decision goes against the Commission's policy dealing with teachers.
Decision A-0678.95
Full Text of Decision A-0678.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Newfoundland replacement teacher with contract ending 6-92. Ten days later, she obtained a new contract with the same employer for the next school year. Umpire held that claimant's contract did end and was therefore entitled to benefits. Decision set aside by the FCA who, relying on its previous decision in Gauthier (A-128-95), found that the claimant's contract had not terminated and that she had not suffered an interruption of earnings.
Decision 34846
Full Text of Decision 34846
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Contracts of some teachers (BC) not renewed for the following teaching year starting in September until some time after end of current school year ending June 30. Held that teachers are entitled until the effective date of new contract only which may exempt them from entitlement during July and Aug.
Commission's interpretation of Reg.46(1) and (2)(a) is correct. Deviation from this interpretation of non-teaching period would allow School Boards to qualify regular teachers by having all contracts run from September 1 to June 30 following.
Decision 34355
Full Text of Decision 34355
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Teaching contract ended on 30-6-95. Verbal agreement to return to work in the fall but no contract signed. Found that claimant was offered and accepted a new contract prior to the termination of the existing contract. Not eligible for the summer period.Reference made to FCA Marco Gauthier(A-128-95)
Decision 26838
Full Text of Decision 26838
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0128.95
Decision A-0128.95
Full Text of Decision A-0128.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Contract ending 25-6-93. Subsequently renewed retroactively for the period of 1-7-93 to 30-6-94. Disentitled pursuant to Reg. 46.1. Decision maintained by the Federal Court of Appeal. The interpretation of the facts is accurate: the claimant was never unemployed.
Decision 29339
Full Text of Decision 29339
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Newfoundland replacement teacher with contract ending 6-92. The narrow issue in this case is "had her contract terminated?" In my view it had. The fact that 10 days later she obtained a new contract with the same employer for the next school year did not nullify that fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 28453
Full Text of Decision 28453
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Para. 46.1(2)(a) disentitles a claimant unless his contract for teaching has terminated. The Commission interprets this, rightly I believe, by distinguishing between a mere "termination of employment" and a cessation of employment which is no longer in effect when a new contract is signed.
Decision 28439
Full Text of Decision 28439
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
B.C. regular teachers who were given notice of layoff effective 1-7 to reduce staff, and were rehired at various times during the summer. Held that they were properly disentitled under para. 46.1(2)(a) once rehired for the next school year.
Decision 26334
Full Text of Decision 26334
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher in N.B. from 26-8-91 to 19-6-92. Contract ended, she was offered permanent job and contract was signed 15-6-92. Produced a letter stating contract is effective 26-8-92. CEIC holds that the contract extends from 1-7-92 to 30-6-93 and exemption under para. 46(1)(a) of Regulations does not apply. Argument dismissed.
Decision 23306
Full Text of Decision 23306
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
The argument that because the school year is defined as being from 1-7 of one year to 30-6 the following year, one who is hired from 1-9 through 30-6 has been hired for a school year. It is neither a logical nor a correct way to incorporate by reference the terms of the School Act into claimant's contract.
Claimant's contract from 23-3-92 terminated 30-6-92. On 29-6-92 he signed a part-time contract with the same School Board effective 1-9-92 through to 30-6-93. Not hired for the school year as commencing 1-7-92 under the B.C. Act but effective 1-9-92.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
casual |
definition |
|
| teaching |
casual or substitute |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
each word counts |
|
Decision 14880
Full Text of Decision 14880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher whose contract runs from 1-8 to 31-7. Resigned at the end of the school year to move with husband. Last day worked: 25-6. Unable to find that contract terminated with final payment on 25-6. Unable to distinguish from a person who takes paid holidays.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 11432
Full Text of Decision 11432
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher who retires from teaching with a contract ending 31-7-84. Fails to meet any of the 3 conditions in reg. 46.1(2). Contract was not terminated prior to the commencement of the non-teaching period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
