Decision 76259
Full Text of Decision 76259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
|
Summary:
The claimant's last day work was September 3, 2008 and filed her initial claim for benefits on October 27, 2008. The claimant requested to have her claim antedated to September 7, 2008 and the Commission has accepted. .The claimant didn’t meet the criteria of the Extended Benefits for Long Tenured worker measure (Bill C-50), because her claim was established prior to January 4, 2009. Unfortunately, the claimant's severance package ended only in February 2009 nothing changes the fact that her claim began on September 7, 2008. A definition of a long-tenured worker is someone who meets the 3 identified criteria, one of them being, the claim must start on or after January 4, 2009, but no later than "September 11, 2010. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 75599
Full Text of Decision 75599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial claim effective July 19, 2009 for benefits and sought additional benefits under Bill C-50 as a long tenured worker. The Commission held that pursuant to subsection 12(2.1) of the Act, the claimant did not qualify for the additional benefits because she did not contribute at least 30% of the maximum premiums for 7 out of the 10 years preceding the beginning of her benefit period. The issue has to do with when the ‘years' are calculated. The Commission's position is that the counting of the 7 prior years begins only in 2008 and not 2009. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision A0252.11
Full Text of Decision A0252.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period effective March 15, 2009. The Commission determined that the claimant did not qualify for additional weeks of benefits under Pilot Project # 14 because an active return to work plan was not in place by August 23, 2009 as required under 77.91(3)(c) of the EIR for benefit periods commencing before May 31, 2009. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review. The FCA held where the claimant’s benefit period began before May 31, 2009, Pilot Project # 14 is only available where the active return to work plan is in place before August 23, 2009 and that there is no power to forgive lateness in filing an active return to work plan where there is good cause for the delay.
Decision A0227.11
Full Text of Decision A0227.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
Pilot Project No. 14 found in section 77.91(3)(iii) of the EIR provides an extension of a claimant’s benefit period and the number of weeks of benefits payable to qualified claimants who undertake long-term training. The Commission found that the claimant did not meet the criteria under Pilot Project No. 14 because her training did not commence within 52 weeks of establishing her benefit period as required by law. The claimant started the program one week outside the 52-week period prescibed in subparagraph 77.91(3)(iii) of the EIR. The FCA held that the BOR and the Umpire erred in law.
Adjudicators are permitted neither to re-write legislation nor to interpret it in manner that is contrary to its plain meaning.
Decision 74331
Full Text of Decision 74331
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
According to the Commission, the claimant is not eligible for extended benefits under the Pilot Project No. 14, “Career Transition Program” since he does not meet all of the criteria set out in the Regulations. During the 260 week period before the beginning of his benefits period which commenced on February 1, 2009, the claimant had received more than 36 weeks of E.I. benefits, and therefore did not qualify. The claimant does not base his appeal on legal grounds, but claims that persons with disabilities such as his should be eligible. The Board has no authority to amend the requirements of the legislation, neither does an Umpire. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
eligibility to benefits |
|
|
Decision 74218
Full Text of Decision 74218
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
Pilot project |
Project # 14 |
Summary:
The claimant was denied eligibility as a long-tenured worker to participate in the Career Transition Program.. The appeal to the Board of Referees was dismissed. The claimant now appeals before the Umpire claiming that the Board made an error of fact. The Pilot Project No. 14 applies in respect of every claimant whose benefits period is established in the period beginning on January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010. The appellant applied for regular EI Benefits on October 20, 2008. The appellant's benefit claim is clearly prior to the date stipulated in the legislation. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 75598
Full Text of Decision 75598
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
The claimant did not meet the criteria to be considered a Long Tenured Worker and therefore was not eligible to receive additional weeks of benefits pursuant to subsection 12(2.1) of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act). The claimant requested a reconsideration, to have the file date pushed forward in time to qualify for LTW, again, this was denied. The claimant then requested the file to be cancelled. The jurisprudence clearly provides that when a benefit period has been established and benefits have already been paid, the Commission cannot cancel the benefit period. The claimants appeal is dismissed.
Decision 68519
Full Text of Decision 68519
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
A new benefit period could have been established on February 12, 2006 but the claimant only had 574 hours of insurable employment - he needed 595 hours. His request to cancel his renewal claim of Octobre 2005 in order to establish a new benefit period from October 16, 2005 was refused by the Commission but granted by the Board of Referees. The claimant would only have needed 525 hours of insurable employment to establish a benefit period in October. "The Commission could not know how a change in the unemployment rate would affect the determination of the number of insurable hours required by the claimant to qualify for benefits or the number of benefit weeks to which a person is entitled."
Decision 66348
Full Text of Decision 66348
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error. It was not possible to cancel the benefits paid for the weeks from April 24 to May 21, 2005 retroactively, thereby creating an overpayment, and then establish an initial benefit period effective August 21, 2005. The Commission had also looked at the possibility of terminating the first benefit period and establishing a new one, but this was not possible, because the claimant had to have accumulated 600 hours of insurable employment since March 18, 2005, and since she did not return to work until May 24, 2005, she had accumulated only 552 hours. She thus qualified for only 15 weeks of maternity benefits, followed by 17 weeks of parental benefits.
Decision 64484
Full Text of Decision 64484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
The claimant requested that her initial benefit period be cancelled in order to claim maternity benefits. The claimant had received benefits during her initial benefit period. The Umpire found that, under subsection 10(6) of the Act, the claimant did not meet the requirements for her benefit period to be cancelled.
Decision 53440
Full Text of Decision 53440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Claimant asked that his benefit period be cancelled despite payment of one week of benefits, so that he could benefit from the new regulatory amendments. This would allow him to receive 34 weeks of benefits instead of 22 weeks. Claimant argued that he had not really started receiving benefits since, before requesting the cancellation, he had not cashed his first EI cheque. Argument dismissed. That he had not cashed his cheque does not change the application of the Act, which states "benefits (that) were paid or payable".
Decision 52798
Full Text of Decision 52798
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Claimant was paid one week of benefits and asked to have her benefit period cancelled so as to take advantage of a change in the unemployment rate in the region. Would have been entitled to 35 weeks of benefit instead of 23 weeks. Request denied and decision upheld by the Umpire in light of provisions in the Act. Claimant received the benefits and accepted them.
Decision A-0558.95
Full Text of Decision A-0558.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Initial benefit period established on 23-12-90 with 14 WIEs: one (1) week of benefits paid. Renewal on 05-05-91 for maternity. Claimant ineligible: insufficient WIEs (14 WIEs rather than the 20 WIEs required) accumulated during the qualifying period. Claimant requested cancellation of benefit period. Request refused: one (1) week paid. Appeals dismissed by the Umpire and the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| maternity benefits |
major attachment requirement |
|
|
Decision 21685
Full Text of Decision 21685
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Applied for regular UI on 25-4-91 while pregnant. She then opted to work 5 more weeks to qualify for maternity UI. Tried in vain to speak to a CEIC agent in May. Ceased work in June. Regular claim processed and some monies paid in the meantime. Cannot qualify for maternity UI.
Decision 19743
Full Text of Decision 19743
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
The failure of the Commission to inform the claimant of the possibility of cancellation of a claim to the possible advantage of a claimant is not a ground for appeal in the absence of some other negligence. CUB 11014 referred to.
Decision 18482
Full Text of Decision 18482
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
UI paid for 4 weeks at $38. When the cheques were received is irrelevant as is the question of whether he ever cashed them. Once the benefit period was established and a benefit became payable, there can be no turning back even if he chose not to acceptthe payment.
Decision 16660
Full Text of Decision 16660
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Benefit period established in 6-86. Claimant was paid one week and returned to work. Claim renewed in 9-86 and benefit period expires in 6-87. Benefit period not to be cancelled.
Decision 12991
Full Text of Decision 12991
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Benefit period established 7-84; renewed 11-84; wishes to cancel period properly established and start anew in 11-84. Cancellation possible only where benefit not paid or payable. Benefit payable and paid 22-7 to 4-8-84. Commencement date not to be altered.
Decision A-0239.85
Full Text of Decision A-0239.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Received 3 weeks of benefit after the waiting period. Subsequently entitled to provincial maternity allowances. States that they were payable earlier and applies for the cancellation of the benefit period. Application denied by Umpire. Decision upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wage-loss |
withdrawal of services |
|
Decision A-0133.76
Full Text of Decision A-0133.76
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
cancellation |
|
Summary:
Ss. 43(2) does not allow the cancellation of a benefit period when weeks of a disqualification have been served. The Board of Referees did not err in law in dismissing the claimant’s allegation, ruling that she was not available and, consequently, disentitled during these weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 77053
Full Text of Decision 77053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
The claimant applied for benefits on July 23, 2010. During his qualifying period, he accumulated only 431 employment insurable hours. At the time of his application,there was an unemployment rate of 11% in his region. Prior to July, 2010, the claimant benefited from an extended benefit period which was interrupted by a working period between November 2009 and January 26, 2010. In January, he renewed his existing claim and received benefit until July. At the time of the claimant's lay off in January 2010, the unemployment rate in his region was 14.1% and the required number of insurable hours to qualify for benefits was 420. If the claimant had been eligible to establish a new claim in January, he would have been eligible for benefits. However, by the time where is prior benefit period expired, the new rate of unemployment of 11% required 525 hours to qualify for benefits. The BOR noted that it did not have any discretion in this matter. The law must be applied as it stands. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
BPNE |
|
Decision A-0117.97
Full Text of Decision A-0117.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
Benefit period effective 7-10-90. July 93 claimant received a payment in settlement of his wrongful dismissal. The allocation prevented claimant from establishing an interruption of earnings until 19-11-90 which coincided with the coming into force of Bill C-21, reducing entitlement from 50 to 41 weeks of benefits. Umpire ruled that the amending legislation is not applicable to the claimant's claim, he is entitled to the period of benefits according to the law which existed at the date of his application on 7-10-90. FCA focused on the use of the word "established" and not "commenced" in the transitional provision, there is no doubt that there had been a benefit period "established" in favour of the claimant effective 7-10-90 before the provisions determining its length were repealed. FCA maintained Umpire's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision 42015
Full Text of Decision 42015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in law in deciding that a benefit period started on a Wednesday since this is contrary to the EI Act which states that a benefit period starts on a Sunday.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision A-1102.92
Full Text of Decision A-1102.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
Last day worked 15-11-90 (Thursday). New legislation in effect 18-11. Claim filed 20-11. Number of insured weeks: 20 including last week worked. Cannot benefit of former legislation as he would not qualify with 19 weeks. Can only qualify from 18-11 when new legislation applies. No change by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 21248
Full Text of Decision 21248
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1102.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 15637
Full Text of Decision 15637
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
The beginning was established as of 2-10-83, in accordance with the CEIC circular, even though the insured person filed his application only on 11-10-83 and despite the clear provisions of 9(1)(b). Complications followed regarding calculation of the rate of benefit. The beginning was moved back to 9-10-83.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
Decision 12553
Full Text of Decision 12553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Summary:
Benefit period starts either week of interruption of earnings or week of claim. Once established, starting date cannot be adjusted to entitle claimant to maximum payable. CEIC not required to inform claimant of most advantageous date.
Decision 74180
Full Text of Decision 74180
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
pilot projects |
Summary:
The issue in the present appeal is whether or not the claimant qualifies as a "Long-Tenured Worker". The Commission held that the claimant did not meet the criteria set out in the subsection 77.91 of the Employment Insurance Regulations since her benefit period started on September 21, 2008, and not between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010. The appeal by the claimant before the Umpire is dismissed.
Decision T1780.17
Full Text of Decision T1780.17
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The Commission denied the claimant's request to renew her benefits. She appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Division of the SST, which found that she could receive benefits only within a period of 52 weeks after they began. Since her benefit period began in September 2013, she would normally have had to claim any outstanding benefits prior to September 2014. An extension of that period for another year might have been available, but that would allow the claimant to receive benefits only until September 2015.The claimant returned to the country outside the benefit period. The claimant appealed the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division of the SST, which concluded that her appeal had no reasonable chance of success and refused her application for leave to appeal. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Decision 76507
Full Text of Decision 76507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period on December 16, 2007. The claimant did not receive benefits until August 22, 2009 by reason of the allocation of a severance pay. Her benefit period was extended to the maximum period provided under section 10 (14) of the Employment Insurance Act. In the end, at the time where the claimant started receiving benefits 89 weeks of her benefit period had elapsed and she was eligible to receive benefits only for the balance of the 104 weeks. Unfortunately, the Umpire, nor the BOR and nor the Commission has the authority to amend the law. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 77658
Full Text of Decision 77658
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The claimant disagreed with the benefit period fixed by the Commission, auguing that it should be longer due to his many years of employment. An appeal to the Board of Referees was dismissied. The BOR stated that the subsection 12(2) of the Act establishes the maximum number of weeks for which emplyment insurance benefits may be paid in a benefit period, based on the number of insurable employment hours accumulated in the qualifying period and the applicable regional rate of unemployment. Section 10(8)(a) states no further benefits are payable to the claimant in their benefit period, including for the reason that benefits have been paid for the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid under section 12. The claimant's appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.
Decision 75805
Full Text of Decision 75805
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The claimant's last day of employment was December 17, 2008. He applied for benefits on December 22, 2008. A benefit period was then established December 21, 2008 with the two week waiting period for the weeks of December 21st and 28th. He then received benefits. The claimant's employer went into bankruptcy in December 2008. In May 2009, the claimant received from the Trustee in bankruptcy an amount under the Wage Eatners Protection Program. On july 15, 2009, he was advised by the Commission taht the amount received would be deducted from his benefits from December 14, 2008 to January 3, 2009. His two week waiting period was then attributed to the weeks starting January 4th and 11th, 2009. The claimant submits that since his two week waiting period started on January 4 and not to have received benefits before that date, his benefit period started at the earliest on January 4, 2009 and should qualify for Long Tenure Worker. The Commission on the other hand submits that in this case the benefit period was established before January 4, 2009 and that according to section 10(2) of the Employment insurance Act as amended by Bill C-50, the claimant is not eligible for the extended benefits provided under the Bill. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Decision 75822
Full Text of Decision 75822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The claimant took parental leave and received 28 weeks of benefits under the QPIP from May 5 to November 15, 2008. On October 22, 2008, the employer issued a ROE which indicated that he was terminated. The claimant accumulated 919 insurable hours during his qualifying period. The claimant lived in the Montreal area where the unemployment rate was 7.5% and was entitled to receive 26 weeks of EI benefits. The claimant argued that had he not taken parental leave, he would have been entitled to 45 or 52 weeks, like everyone else. According to a regulation made in this context, the EI qualifying period cannot be extended for any week in which a person has received provincial benefits such as QPIP benefits. This principle of equivalence extends to benefits paid under a provincial plan a recognition that is similar to maternity or parental benefits paid under the EI program, applied to any future claim for EI benefits. According to a regulation made in this context, the EI qualifying period cannot be extended dor any week in which a person has received provincial benefits for birth or adoption such as QPIP benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the BOR and the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
QPIP |
Decision 75113
Full Text of Decision 75113
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant was entitled to additional weeks of regular benefits. The claimant received 15 weeks of sick benefits, 34 weeks of regular benefits and thought she should be entitled to additional benefits even though she had received eight additional weeks as a LTW. The clear reading of s. 12(2) states that the claimant is entitled to a maximum of 50 weeks and that would be combined special and regular benefits. The claimant then only had one week left. The appeal of the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 50391A
Full Text of Decision 50391A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Claimant was entitled to 29 weeks of benefits, 15 of which were issued as sickness benefits. He could not qualify for regular benefits from the termination of his sickness benefits until the date of his recovery which was after the termination of his benefit period. Argued that his benefit period should have been extended. Request denied: circumstance not covered in the legislation.
Decision A-0117.97
Full Text of Decision A-0117.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Benefit period effective 7-10-90. July 93 claimant received a payment in settlement of his wrongful dismissal. The allocation prevented claimant from establishing an interruption of earnings until 19-11-90 which coincided with the coming into force of Bill C-21, reducing entitlement from 50 to 41 weeks of benefits. Umpire ruled that the amending legislation is not applicable to the claimant's claim, he is entitled to the period of benefits according to the law which existed at the date of his application on 7-10-90. FCA focused on the use of the word "established" and not "commenced" in the transitional provision, there is no doubt that there had been a benefit period "established" in favour of the claimant effective 7-10-90 before the provisions determining its length were repealed. FCA maintained Umpire's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Decision 29858
Full Text of Decision 29858
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Claimant requested that his regular claim be terminated pursuant to 9(6)(d) of the Act in favour of a fishing claim. Request denied. S. 85(1)(a) of the Regulations provides benefits to a fisherman who "is not qualified under section 6 of the Act to receive benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| fishing |
voluntary termination of benefit period |
|
|
Decision 23444
Full Text of Decision 23444
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Claimant disputes the fact that her benefit period kept running following the expiration of her sickness benefits while she was for a time still incapable of work, and until she had recovered enough to collect regular benefits.
Decision 22338
Full Text of Decision 22338
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The insured alleges that the applicable paragraph is 9(2), which states that the benefits period is 52 weeks, and not 11(2). These clauses do not deal with the same thing. One established the duration of the benefits period and the other the maximum benefits payable during that period.
Decision 16159
Full Text of Decision 16159
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
After 42 weeks his UI ran out as this was his maximum entitlement. It is not correct to say that a claimant is entitled to 52 weeks of UI, this being the maximum of a claimant and varies in each individual case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 14568
Full Text of Decision 14568
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Length of a benefit period is 50 weeks. A return to the work force for 6 weeks in the middle of a benefit period does not qualify a claimant for an extension.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
employed |
Decision 14454
Full Text of Decision 14454
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
13 insured weeks and was paid 13 weeks of initial benefits and 26 of regionally extended. She was told she would be entitled to 50 weeks. Misinformation does not entitle a claimant to benefits to which not otherwise entitled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 14180
Full Text of Decision 14180
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Ceased work 19-6-85. Claim filed 28-2-86. 18 insured weeks in qualifying period. Hence, claimant only eligible for 18 weeks of benefit plus extended benefits based on regional rate. Received 34 weeks in total. Not entitled to one full year.
Decision 13131
Full Text of Decision 13131
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Maximum benefits not paid because there was no interruption of earnings following the last day worked. If severance pay is declared to be earnings and allocated, that period is deducted from his benefit period.
Decision 12310
Full Text of Decision 12310
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The claimant was entitled to a maximum benefit period of 52 weeks. What she does not understand is that once her benefit period started running, it continued to run despite any disentitlement or disqualification.
Decision 12052
Full Text of Decision 12052
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Necessarily terminates after 52 weeks.
Decision 11333
Full Text of Decision 11333
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Benefit period generally continues for 52 weeks. A claimant who finds employment is not entitled to receive UI while employed. But the benefit period is not thereby terminated; it continues to exist and may be reactivated later with no waiting period toserve.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
expiration |
|
| claim procedure |
address of normal place of residence |
change |
|
Decision 11135
Full Text of Decision 11135
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
The issue is whether a period of disentitlement is included in claimant's 52-week benefit period. See CUB 8978. Since claimant was properly disentitled for 5 weeks, potential entitlement in her benefit period is reduced by 5 weeks.
Decision 10793
Full Text of Decision 10793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Goes without saying that a benefit period is not established if an earlier period has not ended. Because the earlier period ended only on 26-11-83, board erred in treating claim made on 10-3-83 as initial claim rather than renewed claim.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
waiting period |
|
|
Decision 10717
Full Text of Decision 10717
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Summary:
Commencement date: 16-5-82. Benefits paid until 5-83 except from 13-9 to 18-12-82 due to pregnancy and confinement. 37 weeks paid in total. Unfair treatment alleged under Bill of Rights and Human Rights as compared to prisoners whose benefit periods maybe extended.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 61641
Full Text of Decision 61641
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
early termination |
Summary:
The decision of a claimant to terminate his benefit period early for the purpose of establishing a new one immediately is final if it is based on relevant and accurate information.
Decision 76519
Full Text of Decision 76519
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
|
Summary:
The claimant was involved in an accident and unable to work between November 5, 2008 and October 15, 2009. In October 22, 2009 the claimant filed for special benefits and requested to back date the application to November 5, 2008. The commission ruled she did not have good cause to delay as required by law. The delay was caused by her filing of a claim with a private insurer. The Commission reviewed the request and allowed her qualifying period extended by an additional 50 weeks. This allowed her to establish 643 insurable hours but she needed 788 insurable hours. The claimant has accumulated a minor violation in the 260 weeks preceding the filing of her claim, thus increasing the number of required insured hours to qualify. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 76507
Full Text of Decision 76507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period on December 16, 2007. The claimant did not receive benefits until August 22, 2009 by reason of the allocation of a severance pay. Her benefit period was extended to the maximum period provided under section 10 (14) of the Employment Insurance Act. In the end, at the time where the claimant started receiving benefits 89 weeks of her benefit period had elapsed and she was eligible to receive benefits only for the balance of the 104 weeks. Unfortunately, the Umpire, nor the BOR and nor the Commission has the authority to amend the law. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision 76063
Full Text of Decision 76063
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
The claimant filed a claim for benefits effective February 21, 2010. The Commission determined that the claimant had only accumulated 17 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period which ran from February 22, 2009 to February 20, 2010. The claimant had an E.I benefit period established as of September 6, 2008 and received 15 weeks of sickness benefits. The claimant stated that health reasons prevented him from working from September 6, 2008 to February 4, 2010. On May 11, 2010, the BOR allowed the claimant’s appeal by allowing the qualifying period to be extended to February 20, 2008. The Commission argued that according to Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act stipulate that a qualifying period cannot be extended beyond a preceding benefit period. The appeal by the Commission’s decision is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 68048
Full Text of Decision 68048
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
To be eligible for an extension of the benefit period under paragraph 10(10)(b) of the EI Act, the earnings must have been paid because of the complete severance of the relationship with the employer. In this case there has been no complete severance as the claimant was re-instated by his employer some two years later. The claimant sought full benefits by way of extension between the end of the allocation of earnings and the date of re-instatement.
Decision 31280
Full Text of Decision 31280
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Following her precautionary cessation of work (maternity), the beneficiary requested that her benefit period be extended. The request was denied. The compensation received by the beneficiary for precautionary cessation of work would not have prevented benefits from being paid (s. 9(7)(d) of the Act).
Decision S-1059.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Parliament's desire to benefit both inmates and injured workers is in the context of an Act that, for legislative policy reasons, grants broader or narrower benefits to different classes of claimants.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
necessary conditions |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Decision 11239
Full Text of Decision 11239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
As per ss.20(7), a claimant's benefit period may only be extended in certain particular circumstances, namely incarceration in gaol or receipt of workmen's compensation. Claimant did not fit into either of these. Neither the CEIC, Board nor I can changethe Act.
Decision 11028
Full Text of Decision 11028
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
It is period that is extended. This does not necessarily entitle claimant to benefit for entire extended portion; other requirements to be met in addition to being unemployed. I therefore do not see why 9(7) should be narrowly construed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Decision 10717
Full Text of Decision 10717
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Benefit payments interrupted due to pregnancy and confinement. 37 weeks paid in total during benefit period. Unfair treatment alleged under Bill of Rights and Human Rights as compared to prisoners whose benefit periods may be extended under 20(7).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A-0525.95
Full Text of Decision A-0525.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Claimant was referred to a course. On 6-03-92, the claimant left the course for five weeks because of sickness. Claimant was ineligible to receive sick benefits, and the authorization to take the course was withdrawn retroactively to 6-03-92. Nevertheless, the claimant returned to the course and completed it successfully. The FCA referred the matter back to the Umpire for determination as to whether the claimant was still referred despite his absence. **NOTE: The FCA identified several ambiguities, and noted that there was a lack of consensus regarding the nature of the Commission’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
absences from course |
sickness |
|
Decision 32891
Full Text of Decision 32891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Payment for a course and referral are two separate and distinct actions by the Commission. Commission paid for the course but evidence establishes that it did not refer the claimant to the course as required by ss.26(1) of the Act. Claimant not entitledto an extension under ss.26(2) of the Act.
Decision 29992
Full Text of Decision 29992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Claimant referred to a course on 4-11-90. On 13-11-92 she quits the course on account of her expected date of confinement on 10-12-92. Maximum extension of three weeks granted, pursuant to sections 26(2) of the Act and 51(2) of the Regulations.
Decision 15413
Full Text of Decision 15413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
I agree with CUB 9198 about ss. 20(7) [that extensions not to be allowed for University students regardless of their availability for work].
Decision 27980
Full Text of Decision 27980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
criminal acts |
Summary:
Held that the criminal injury benefits paid through the Workmen's Compensation Board of B.C. do not constitute workers' compensation payments for the purpose of para. 9(7)(c), nor do they come under (d) for having ceased to work because continuing would have entailed danger to claimant.
Decision 14568
Full Text of Decision 14568
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
employed |
Summary:
Length of a benefit period is 50 weeks. A return to the work force for 6 weeks in the middle of a benefit period does not qualify a claimant for an extension.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A0434.10
Full Text of Decision A0434.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant received work-sharing benefits that were converted to regular benefits after losing his job. At the end of his benefit period, the claimant was informed that he was ineligible for extended-benefits under the newly implemented Long-Tenured Worker (LTW) program because his claim had been established outside the eligibility period. The Commission could not advise the claimant in February 2009 about his eligibility for LTW status because the LTW program did not exist at the time. Bill C-50 was enacted on November 5, 2009 and made retroactive to January 4, 2009. There was no evidence on record showing that the Commission should have known, as early as February, 2009, that Bill C-50 would be enacted or that it would provide more benefits for claimant establishing a benefit period starting on January 4, 2009. The Commission has no power to amend the Act.
Decision 76023
Full Text of Decision 76023
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant wanted to cancel his benefit claim established in September 2008 so as to establish a new one on January 4, 2009 in order to benefit from the Career Transition Program, which would have allowed him to obtain additional weeks of benefit. The claimant file an initial claim for benefits, received a vacation and severance pay, which were spread out until December 5, 2008. According to the BOR, a claimant who wants to terminate a benefits period for just cause must ask the Commission in order to submit a new claim for benefits. After checking, the Commission said that the claimant would qualify for the program if his claim were dated January 4, 2009. However, there was no justification for the delay from September 2008 to January 2009 to end his benefit period except so that he could take advantage of a new Bill coming into effect on October 25, 2009. Although the Board of Referees agrees with the claimant concerning the spirit of this assistance measure, a change in the Act is not just cause for a change in his file. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76066
Full Text of Decision 76066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant last worked was December 12, 2008 and a claim was established on December 14, 2008. He was told by a representative of EI who came to the factory prior to closing, to file his EI claims immediately. The Bill C-50, which came into force on the 25th of October, 2009, it provided in addition to the five weeks contained in Bill C-10, an extension of regular benefits for any claimants whose benefit period was established on/after January 4, 2009. To be eligible a claimant was required to show that he had previously paid at least 30% of the maximum EI contributions for various periods of time ranging from 7 to 12 years. The Commission came to the conclusion that because the claimant’s benefit period had been established in December of 2008, even dough his severance finished on January 8, 2009, he did not meet the criteria as a long-tenured worker. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75014
Full Text of Decision 75014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant was employed until the 21st of December, 2008 at which point a claim for benefits was established. He then returned to work for the same company from January 19 until April 8, 2009. The claimant inquired about the long-tenured worker program but was denied. In order to qualify for LTW one must have a benefit period between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010. Although the Commission agreed that the claimant meets the criteria of contributing at least 30% of the maximum annual employee’s premium and being paid less than 36 weeks of regular benefits in the past five years, his claim for benefits started before January 25, 2009. The Commission could not cancel the benefits as benefits were payable to the claimant from the preceding January and he received and accepted these benefits. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed
Decision A0230.11
Full Text of Decision A0230.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Summary:
The claimant made an initial claim and a benefit period was established effective January 11, 2009. The claimant requested to have his claim antedated to commence on December 21, 2008. The Commission granted the antedate. On October 25, 2009, new provisions to assist Long Tenured Workers (LTWs) were introduced. The LTW provisions only applied to benefit periods established on or after January 4, 2009. The claimant appealed his ineligibility to the LTW program arguing that the start of his benefit period had been changed by the Commission. The BOR granted the claimant’s appeal. The Commission appealed this decision to the Umpire, who dismissed the appeal. The FCA dismissed the application for judicial review. The FCA held that the record did not disclose any basis for the Commission’s decision of June 2009 to antedate the commencement of the benefit period to December 21, 2008.
Decision A0455.10
Full Text of Decision A0455.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period effective June 8, 2008. He had received a severance pay allocated until May 2, 2009. He then received regular benefits from May 5, 2009, to December 27, 2009. The claimant applied for extended benefits under the long-tenured worker provisions of the EIA. The Commission denied his application on the basis that, to be eligible for long-term worker status, a claimant's benefit period must have been established between January 4, 2009, and September 11, 2010. The FCA concluded that the claimant applied for benefits on June 13, 2008 and his «benefit period» was established on the previous Sunday, which was June 8, 2008. That date falls outside the periods set in the EIA for which extended benefits are available.
Decision 75805
Full Text of Decision 75805
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Summary:
The claimant's last day of employment was December 17, 2008. He applied for benefits on December 22, 2008. A benefit period was then established December 21, 2008 with the two week waiting period for the weeks of December 21st and 28th. He then received benefits. The claimant's employer went into bankruptcy in December 2008. In May 2009, the claimant received from the Trustee in bankruptcy an amount under the Wage Eatners Protection Program. On july 15, 2009, he was advised by the Commission taht the amount received would be deducted from his benefits from December 14, 2008 to January 3, 2009. His two week waiting period was then attributed to the weeks starting January 4th and 11th, 2009. The claimant submits that since his two week waiting period started on January 4 and not to have received benefits before that date, his benefit period started at the earliest on January 4, 2009 and should qualify for Long Tenure Worker. The Commission on the other hand submits that in this case the benefit period was established before January 4, 2009 and that according to section 10(2) of the Employment insurance Act as amended by Bill C-50, the claimant is not eligible for the extended benefits provided under the Bill. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A-0311.95
Full Text of Decision A-0311.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
According to the Board, and in contrast to the French version, the English wording "workers' compensation for an injury" includes compensation paid by Assurance-automobile du Québec for a road accident. Decided that the English version had been improperly understood. Decision upheld by FCA.
Decision 27459
Full Text of Decision 27459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0311.95
Decision 28207
Full Text of Decision 28207
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Involved in an accident. Monies received from Wage Loss Indemnity in B.C. CUB 20790 quoted. Claimant feels there ought to be no distinction when the amounts are paid under the Workmen's Compensation scheme of a province or paid by a public insurance company as compensation for injuries sustained.
Decision 20790
Full Text of Decision 20790
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was in receipt of monies from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Ss.9(7) is quite specific and must be strictly interpreted. The payment here does not qualify for extending a benefit period.
Decision 15009
Full Text of Decision 15009
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Compensation paid to the insured person, who was the victim of a highway accident, by the Régie de l'assurance-automobile du Québec cannot take the place of maximum compensation provided in the case of employment injuries.
Decision 76323
Full Text of Decision 76323
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant was denied benefits after the expiration of his benefit period. The claimant’s last day of work was February 15, 2008. He filed an application for benefits on March 27, 2008. At that time the claimant left for Iran and remained in Iran for nine months. He was not eligible to benefits during that period by reason of his absence from Canada. The claimant submitted a second application in December 2008. The Commission was required to consider the 52 week period prior to the date of the application in order to determine the insurable hours of the claimant. The claimant did not work between February 15, 2008 and December 2008 and has no insurable hours. The Act provides that in certain cases the benefit period may be extended to a maximum of 104 weeks. Unfortunately the claimant’s situation is not one where an extension may be granted. Subsection 10(2) of the Act determines the length of a benefit period. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
eligibility to benefits |
|
|
Decision 26220
Full Text of Decision 26220
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant's absence from Canada and the resulting disentitlement does not qualify him for an extension to the benefit period. His benefit period covers 52 consecutive weeks and these benefits cannot be deferred to a later period after the benefit period terminates.
Decision 21072
Full Text of Decision 21072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
He did not undergo any treatment while outside the country; nor was he subjected to any care not available in Canada. Under s.32 there can be no payments. There also can be no extension to a benefit period; it runs without interruption unless an exemption applies.
Decision 17535
Full Text of Decision 17535
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Claimant applied for an extension on the ground that she left Canada to join her daughter in the U.S. from 10-12 to 6-4 and that she was not given adequate information when she enquired before leaving.
Decision A-0510.02
Full Text of Decision A-0510.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
The Commission denied the request for an extension of the benefit period since the claimant was entitled to benefits during her preventive withdrawal period. The Court concluded that the claimant had not proven that she was not entitled to benefits as stipulated in paragraph 10(10) of the EIA.
Decision 54777
Full Text of Decision 54777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0510.02
Decision 44831
Full Text of Decision 44831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Claimant was receiving $394.00 from the CSST while his weekly benefit rate was $402.00. He was therefore entitled to $8.00 a week. He had not claimed benefits while receiving the CSST compensation and therefore requested an extension of his benefit period. Request denied. Decision upheld by the Umpire under paragraph 10(10)(c) of the EI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 39569
Full Text of Decision 39569
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Commission refused to extend the benefit period because the claimant could have demanded the difference between the benefit rate ($245/wk) and the preventative withdrawal settlement rate ($222/wk). The Board of Referees set aside this decision. Umpire found that subsection 9(7) does not apply to this case. The claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, since the amount of his settlement was less than his unemployment insurance benefits. The Board thus erred in its interpretation of this provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 27033
Full Text of Decision 27033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
Weekly benefits from Health Services Society, the adjudicator for the IWA-Forest Industry Health and Welfare Plan. I am bound by CUB 14652. The Board erred in holding that these benefits were completely analogous to Workers' Compensation Payments under the B.C. Act which is wholly employer funded.
Decision 25708
Full Text of Decision 25708
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
Held that the allowances paid in accordance with the Regulations on Complementary Benefits Plans in the Construction Industry, under the Labour Relations Act in the Construction Industry, do not provide entitlement to the extension contemplated in ss. 9(7).
Decision 21572
Full Text of Decision 21572
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
Received salary insurance compensation until 30-4-89. Pursuant to 9(7), the benefits period may be extended if the beneficiary is receiving the compensation provided for in the case of an industrial accident or occupational injury. The compensation received is not the equivalent.
Decision 14652
Full Text of Decision 14652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
He was neither incarcerated nor in receipt of workers' compensation. Claimant does not fit those criteria for extension because he was in receipt of payments through his former's disability insurance plan.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 70544
Full Text of Decision 70544
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
The claimant maintained that his benefit period should have been extended under section 10(10)(c) of the Act. The Commission determined that the claimant received $324 a week from the WHSCC, and because he was entitled to receive $345 a week in Employment Insurance benefits, he could not be considered ineligible for Employment Insurance benefits during the period when he was receiving workers' compensation from the WHSCC. The Commission determined that the claimant was entitled to receive $21.00 in benefits for each week during the period. The evidence shows that during no weeks of his benefit period could he not receive Employment Insurance benefits because he was collecting workers' compensation.
Decision S-1071.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
An insured who receives worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was not entitled under s. 36.
Decision S-1059.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
It is difficult to understand why two insured persons disentitled under s. 36 because incapable of work should be treated differently because one received worker's compensation. This anomaly should not be remedied by judicial intervention.
An insured who has received worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was disentitled under s. 36.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
necessary conditions |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision A-0649.86
Full Text of Decision A-0649.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
Not only does 9(7)(c) not treat equally situated persons unequally, it actually affords disabled persons who have received workers' compensation payments the same benefits under the Act that other disabled are entitled to, all else being equal. It does not offend the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 12837
Full Text of Decision 12837
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0649.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 11028
Full Text of Decision 11028
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
According to CEIC, receiving compensation does not count if it must be repaid; suggested that case be adjourned while awaiting final decision of CSST. Request denied. Entitlement may be reviewed under 43(1) at proper time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision A-1071.84
Full Text of Decision A-1071.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
An insured who receives worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was not entitled under s. 36.
Decision 22831
Full Text of Decision 22831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
postdating |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in allowing itself to be led to decide on the postdatation. The record does not even show that the Commission had handed down a decision on the application for postdating, which could have initiated the appeal process before the Board of Referess.
Decision A-0084.90
Full Text of Decision A-0084.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
postdating |
|
Summary:
It was impossible for the Commission to delay the effective date of the claim made in 7-85 by postdating the commencement of the benefit period since the Act does not allow a benefit period to commence after the dates provided in ss. 9(1).
Decision 17732
Full Text of Decision 17732
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
postdating |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0084.90
Decision 12304
Full Text of Decision 12304
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
postdating |
|
Summary:
She made a claim on 31-7 and said she was employed until 31-8. Therefore, she was making a prospective application for benefits. I can see no reason why the Commission should not have treated it as such. Benefit period commencement date ajusted retroactively under 9(1)(b).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
