Decision 64456
Full Text of Decision 64456
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
A claimant who loses an employment because of his misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless, after losing that employment, he is employed in insurable employment for the number of hours required to qualify to receive benefits.
Decision A-0302.97
Full Text of Decision A-0302.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant lost his f/t job on 14-07-93 and started to receive benefits. He applied to take a course, which did not begin until 10-11-93. In mid-August 93, he took a p/t job and left it without just cause on 4-09-93. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision A-0299.97
Full Text of Decision A-0299.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant employed f/t by the University of Ottawa and holding a p/t job elsewhere at the same time. On 31-12-94, claimant lost his job, applied for EI and began to receive benefits. On 25-02-95, he left his p/t job without just cause. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision A-0787.96
Full Text of Decision A-0787.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Lost f/t job in 09-92 and benefits paid. In 02-93, claimant took a p/t job but left it on 8-08-93 to move and attend university. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision A-0799.95
Full Text of Decision A-0799.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Held by FCA that ss. 59.1(1) of the Reg., when interpreted in conjunction with ss. 30.1(2) of the Act, means that the loss of any employment without just cause by a claimant, since the beginning of the qualifying period, will trigger the application of s. 28 disqualification regardless of whether it was a p/t job held concurrently with another or whether it occurred after the establishment of a benefit period based on a lay off from some other regular employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision A-0576.95
Full Text of Decision A-0576.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Lost work on 23-8-93 due to misconduct. Obtained work elsewhere 30-8-93 and after 3 months was laid off. Upon filing claim, was disqualified by reason of previous employment. Held by Umpire that MCLAUGHLIN (A-244-94) applies. The FCA disagreed with the applicability of that decision since it was prior to the enactment of R. 59.1. When read with S.28 of the UI Act, it allows the Commission to impose a disqualification where a claimant loses a job for misconduct but subsequently becomes re-employed and claims benefits as a result of a lay off from the 2nd job. An accumulation of additional insurable weeks from the disqualifying event is necessary to requalify.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
make regulations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision A-0244.94
Full Text of Decision A-0244.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
A claim for benefit, against which a disqualification applies under s. 28, does not require a claimant to file biweekly reporting cards. See KACHMAN. The filing of such report cards is only a requirement of eligibility to receive benefits once a claim has been made. This is clear from s. 40.
Claimant suspended from work for 3 weeks due to misconduct. Filed a renewal claim and was disqualified. Did not file any reporting card. Was laid off for lack of work 7 weeks after. Filed a second renewal claim. Held that the prior disqualification does not apply to the second renewal claim.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision 24276
Full Text of Decision 24276
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0244.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision 29046
Full Text of Decision 29046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
carrying forward |
|
Summary:
Disqualified for 12 weeks resulting from voluntary leaving. Holds another job for 11 weeks and subsequently files a new application for benefits. 10 weeks of disqualification carried over to new benefit period. Decision in accordance with subsections 30(4) and (5).
Decision 27435
Full Text of Decision 27435
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
carrying forward |
|
Summary:
As for carrying forward 9 weeks of disqualification, ss. 30(4) specifies in clear language that the unserved portion of a disqualification must be carried forward to a subsequent claim established within two years of the event giving rise to that disqualification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
garnishment or prosecution |
|
Decision 27324
Full Text of Decision 27324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
carrying forward |
|
Summary:
Renewal claim 16-2-92 with 1 week left in the benefit period. A disentitlement and a 12-week disqualification are imposed. New initial claim 24-5-92. The Board reduced the carrying forward to 5 weeks saying that availability was proven for 7 weeks from 31-3-92. Erroneous application of ss. 30(4).
Decision 37553
Full Text of Decision 37553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Summary:
Having quit his job three weeks before expiration of his contract, the claimant was disqualified. While recognizing that claimant had voluntarily quit his job without just cause, the Umpire found that par. 28.3(1) (a) [ now 33(1) (a) ] which calls for a disentitlemnt rather than disqualification was applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 25997
Full Text of Decision 25997
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Summary:
Left in 10-93 one week before layoff would have occurred. Disentitled for the remainder of his claim. Decision upheld by the Board. The Board made its decision in consideration of all the facts of the case and there is no error under para. 80(c). [NOTE: new s. 28.3 came into force on 3-7-94]
Decision 15046
Full Text of Decision 15046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Summary:
Left 1-9; UI claim 1-10; job to terminate 13-10 as per claimant. Some confusion as to date work would have ceased in any event, which would affect duration of disqualification as claim made 1-10; burden of proof on claimant to show he could not have worked after 13-10.
Decision 12811A
Full Text of Decision 12811A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Summary:
Claimant states that he would have been laid off 6 days later in any event. Nevertheless he should have waited it out. Disqualification however reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 12234
Full Text of Decision 12234
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Summary:
If s.27 had been invoked it is likely that the usual practice, where a temporary job is involved, of reducing the maximum 6 weeks disqualification to the expected duration of the temporary employment would have been imposed. [obiter dictum]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
transportation difficulties |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision 21616
Full Text of Decision 21616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
event giving rise to |
|
Summary:
Hospital worker who arranged for a 6-month leave of absence from 7-90 to 1-91. Applied for regular UI in 11-90. Hospital could not grant her request to return in 11-90 as it had hired someone for 6 months. Held that the voluntary leaving occurred in 7-90 rather than in 11-90.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Decision 11333
Full Text of Decision 11333
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
expiration |
|
Summary:
Reading 30(1) in that context makes it clear that a disqualification once imposed endures, during the life of the benefit period, until served regardless of whether disentitlement (for being employed) intervenes. Buttressed by 30(4) and (5).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
| claim procedure |
address of normal place of residence |
change |
|
Decision A-0583.94
Full Text of Decision A-0583.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
12-week disqualifications to be reserved only for the most serious of cases, not unlike the situation in criminal sentencing where there is a range of possible sentences. If there are extenuating circumstances, less than 12 weeks should be imposed with the shortest in the most sympathetic cases.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 25463
Full Text of Decision 25463
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0583.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 24649
Full Text of Decision 24649
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
The Board reduced the disqualification to 3 weeks. Until 3-4-93, a disqualification for misconduct or voluntary leaving ranged from 7 to 12 weeks. Now it is for each week in a benefit period. Neither the Commission nor the Board can speculate as to the duration of the disqualification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision 18432
Full Text of Decision 18432
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
A 6-week disqualification is the maximum penalty, and is reserved for the most blatant cases of abusing the system. Here the Board's failure to consider the period of disqualification is an error of law. Onus on claimant to show that there are extenuating circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 15818
Full Text of Decision 15818
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
It has been noted time and again in Umpires' decisions that where Parliament provides a maximum period of disqualification, it is to be imposed only in the most egregious of cases. Here it is clear that claimant's conduct was far from flagrant. 1-week disqualification is enough.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Decision 15175
Full Text of Decision 15175
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
It is a well-known principle that where Parliament establishes a maximum penalty, and no minimum, then the maximum is to be levied only in the most flagrant, abusive, abhorrent or gross circumstance.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Decision 14179
Full Text of Decision 14179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
6 weeks is the maximum to be imposed in those extreme and clearcut cases where an employee quits for no reason at all. The other extreme are those where an employee quits for some valid, personal reason not amounting to just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hard work |
|
Decision 14171
Full Text of Decision 14171
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
It is admitted that this sliding scale in ss.43(1) is to recognize any number of mitigating factors in any given case and give some discretion in the severity of the penalty which might be imposed.
Decision 13936
Full Text of Decision 13936
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Because the disqualification of 6 weeks is the maximum it should not be imposed automatically in every case but should be reserved for the more flagrant examples of persons who leave not only without just cause but without any good reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
Decision 12195A
Full Text of Decision 12195A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
The length of the disqualification period, which may run from a minimum of one week to a maximum of six, must reflect the difference between those who leave work to return to school or rejoin their families, and those who leave for no such good reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
preparatory period |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 13361
Full Text of Decision 13361
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Left because he was getting fewer and fewer hours. Worked 3 days in the last week. The 6-week maximum should be reserved for the most blatant cases. There were extenuating circumstances here including the diminishing hours and the unpleasant atmosphere.Reduced from 6 to 4 weeks.
Decision 11492A
Full Text of Decision 11492A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
The maximum 6 weeks are appropriate only in the most serious cases where a claimant has left without any reason or regard for future work. Here, he had good reason to believe that he could get another job shortly [which materialized]. Disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
Decision 13303
Full Text of Decision 13303
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Loss of employment 1 day per week resulting in 6 weeks of disqualification. This seems harsh and grossly unfair considering the $66 savings on the amount of benefits (6 weeks x $11) the CEIC would have paid him during that 6-week period. Disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
Decision 13064
Full Text of Decision 13064
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
The maximum should only be imposed when the claimant voluntarily leaves his employment for no valid reason. The Board said the claimant had a valid reason, only that the reason was personal. Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks.
Decision 13019
Full Text of Decision 13019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Disqualification relating to leaving voluntarily reduced from 3 weeks to 1: looked for other employment before leaving, conscientious person with serious grievance.
Decision 12779
Full Text of Decision 12779
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
The Board did not consider that issue. The maximum disqualification was not appropriate. The employment was part-time. The evidence concerning the circumstances under which he left is at best confused. He held the job for a very short time. Disqualification reduced to 1 week.
Decision 11595A
Full Text of Decision 11595A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Disqualified 6 weeks. Left after 3 days. Job not full-time: a maximum of 24 hours per week only was promised. Because the job was part-time, disqualified reduced to 5 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 12252
Full Text of Decision 12252
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
When Parliament imposes a maximum penalty of any kind, it prescribes that maximum only for the grossest, most flagrant cases. That maximum ought rarely to be imposed because it is the extreme penalty. The vast majority of cases ought to start off at 3 or 4 weeks. [p. 8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 12126
Full Text of Decision 12126
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
No discretion in imposing disqualification but discretion in the length; a claimant who leaves suitable work without good reason should endure the maximum of 6 weeks; those who leave for valid personal and domestic reasons should receive a much shorter disqualification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Decision 12080
Full Text of Decision 12080
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
Leaves part-time employment after having been employed full-time for a long time. Since claimant had to accept reduced hours to retain his employment I will reduce the disqualification to 3 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
Decision 11662
Full Text of Decision 11662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
The disqualification period should correspond in length to the degree of the 'offence' or, perhaps more properly, with the degree of the wantonness with which claimant leaves his employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
commuting |
distance too great |
|
Decision 11453
Full Text of Decision 11453
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
S.41 imposes disqualification without discretion. Discretion is found in s.43 and relates only to length of disqualification. If no valid reason one should suffer maximum disqualification but not if one leaves for entirely responsible personal reasons.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
not definite |
|
Decision 11410
Full Text of Decision 11410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
There is jurisprudence to the effect that if part-time work is lost through misconduct, disqualification should be reduced proportionately to the amount of work actually lost. In the absence of information, I assume it was half-time and disqualificationreduced to 3 weeks.
Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks as it was part-time work. Maximum disqualification limited to most extreme cases. While it was irresponsible of claimant to absent himself as he did, it was to find full-time work, so disqualification further reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
retroactive disqualification |
|
Decision 11045
Full Text of Decision 11045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
There are cases at both extremes, the one where claimant quits perfectly suitable employment for no reason; the other where there may be entirely valid personal reasons, yet not just cause. The validity of the reasons must be reflected in the length of the disqualification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 26398
Full Text of Decision 26398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0037.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0037.95
Full Text of Decision A-0037.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
The Umpire's decision to reduce the period of disqualification established by the Commission was ill-founded. It is quashed and the case is referred back for a new decision, with the understanding that the claimant's appeal had to be dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 24926
Full Text of Decision 24926
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0465.94
Decision A-0465.94
Full Text of Decision A-0465.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
It is clear here that the Umpire did not find any palpable error in the exercise by the Commission of its discretion under para. 27(1)(a) and ss.30(1). He simply substituted his opinion for that of the Commission. That he could not do.
Refusal of work. It is now well established by several decisions of this Court that neither a Board nor an Umpire has jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise by the Commission of a discretionary power unless they become convinced that the discretionwas exercised in a non-judicial manner.
Decision A-0008.95
Full Text of Decision A-0008.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
In deciding to reduce the period of disqualification, the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction; not entitled to interfere unless the discretion was exercised in a "non-judicial manner"; in other words, unless the exercise of discretion was tainted by a fundamental error.
Decision A-0583.94
Full Text of Decision A-0583.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
12-week disqualification for voluntary leaving rescinded by Board. Held by the Umpire that claimant did not have just cause for leaving but, due to extenuating circumstances, a 7-week was reimposed. Held by the Court that there was no ground for interfering with the period of disqualification.
Neither the Board nor the Umpire has jurisdiction to fix the periods of disqualification. Only the Commission has that power, but it must exercise it according to law.
This Court will not lightly interfere with these discretionary decisions, as long as the Commission follows these guidelines (varying the lengths of disqualification). If it fails to follow them, the Board or Umpire may send the matter back to the Commission for redetermination accordingly.
This new jurisprudence (Umpires not allowed to reduce disqualification) does not mean that the Commission now has carte blanche to ignore the will of Parliament and to impose the maximum period automatically. To do so might well amount to a fundamental error subject to review by this Court.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision A-0453.94
Full Text of Decision A-0453.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Disqualification reduced by Board from 9 to 3 weeks. Appeal by Commission. The Umpire imposed the minimum 7 weeks. The decision of the Umpire concerning the alteration of the period of disqualification is set aside. Also, the Board erred in altering the disqualification as fixed by the Commission.
Decision 25903
Full Text of Decision 25903
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0685.94
Decision A-0326.94
Full Text of Decision A-0326.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Length of disqualification for misconduct reduced from 10 to 7 weeks by Umpire. On consent, the decision of the Umpire is set aside on the basis that an Umpire does not have authority to reduce the period of disqualification for benefit.
Decision A-0685.94
Full Text of Decision A-0685.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Length of disqualification for refusal of work reduced from 10 to 7 weeks by Umpire. The decision of the Umpire is set aside on the basis that an Umpire has no authority to reduce the period of disqualification.
Decision 24526
Full Text of Decision 24526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0326.94
Decision A-0265.94
Full Text of Decision A-0265.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Length of disqualification for misconduct reduced from 11 to 7 weeks by Umpire. On consent, the decision of the Umpire is set aside on the basis that, in the circumstances of this case, the Umpire cannot modify the length of the disqualification imposedby the Commission.
Decision 24325
Full Text of Decision 24325
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0265.94
Decision A-0464.94
Full Text of Decision A-0464.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
This issue has recently been decided by this Court in PHUNG. Earlier Court decisions should now be interpreted in the light of this decision. The Umpire was therefore in error in varying the disqualification imposed by the CEIC from 8 to 7 weeks because of his finding of extenuating circumstances.
At issue: the power to reduce length of disqualification. In the rare case where a Commission decision can be set aside for fundamental error, the Umpire or Board of Referees is limited to referring the matter back to the Commission for a proper exercise of its discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 24929
Full Text of Decision 24929
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0464.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A-0343.94
Full Text of Decision A-0343.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Length of disqualification for voluntary leaving reduced from 8 to 7 weeks by Umpire. The decision of the Umpire is set aside. In the circumstances of this case, the Umpire cannot modify the length of the disqualification imposed by the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 24538
Full Text of Decision 24538
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0343.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 25936
Full Text of Decision 25936
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0689.94
Decision A-0689.94
Full Text of Decision A-0689.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Disqualification period reduced from 6 to 3 weeks by the umpire. Case returned to the umpire so that he may make a new decision taking it for granted that in the circumstances of this case, he cannot amend the duration of the disqualification period imposed by the Commission.
Decision A-0308.94
Full Text of Decision A-0308.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
The jurisprudence establishes clearly that neither a Board nor an Umpire may exercise the discretionary powers conferred on the CEIC. Such a decision cannot be overturned unless vitiated by a fundamental error. There is no reason not to apply this to a decision fixing the length of a disqualification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 25463
Full Text of Decision 25463
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0583.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision 24937
Full Text of Decision 24937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0453.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Decision A-0023.94
Full Text of Decision A-0023.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
The Umpire found no error on the part of the Board and, indeed, expressed agreement with the conclusion that claimant had voluntarily quit without just cause. He nevertheless rescinded the disqualification. In the absence of a finding of error, he has no jurisdiction to vary the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision 23731
Full Text of Decision 23731
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0023.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision 21822
Full Text of Decision 21822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Refer to: A-1463.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-1463.92
Full Text of Decision A-1463.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
In the circumstances, we want to leave open the question of an Umpire's jurisdiction over the merits of a disqualification on an issue as to quantum.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0917.83
Full Text of Decision A-0917.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Summary:
Matter referred back to Umpire to decide whether 6 week disqualification should be reduced.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Decision 63204
Full Text of Decision 63204
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length indefinite |
|
Summary:
Subsection 30(2) of the Act states: "The disqualification is for each week of the claimant's benefit period following the waiting period and, for greater certainty, the length of the disqualification is not affected by any subsequent loss of employment by the claimant during the benefit period". The Umpire found that the Board of Referees erred when it upheld the Commission's decision, but terminated the claimant's disqualification March 15, 2004.
Decision A-0492.94
Full Text of Decision A-0492.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length indefinite |
|
Summary:
Left work to take a 10-month course. Appeal allowed by Umpire from termination date of course. Claimant was disqualified for the whole period of her claim for having taken herself out of the work force without just cause. The Umpire was wrong in disputing the validity of that conclusion.
Since the coming into force of s. 30.1 of the Act on 3-4-93, the disqualification period has been established as the full benefit period. The discretion that had previously been conferred on the Commission to reduce the period of disqualification, if extenuating circumstances, has been withdrawn.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
employment defined |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Decision 21932
Full Text of Decision 21932
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
Under s. 30, the minimum period of disqualification for misconduct is 7 weeks. I must conclude that the Board erred in law in reducing the disqualification period to 6 weeks when the Act indicates that 7 weeks is the minimum penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
delay in scheduling hearing |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision 15226
Full Text of Decision 15226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
There are extenuating circumstances which dictate that only the minimal period of disqualification should be imposed. Accordingly, the 5-week disqualification is reduced to 1 week.
Decision 15175
Full Text of Decision 15175
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
The disqualification is hereby reduced to one week only, since there is no statutory unit smaller than that.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision 14381
Full Text of Decision 14381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
Claimant shoved his foreman deliberately. That action was undoubtedly misconduct. The factors leading up to the incident and the stresses from which claimant was suffering are all extenuating circumstances which reduce the disqualification to the minimum of 1 week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Decision 13135
Full Text of Decision 13135
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
The disqualification period is reduced from 3 weeks to the minimum period possible: one week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 12455
Full Text of Decision 12455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
In the circumstances, the minimum period of disqualification is warranted. It is reduced from two to one week.
Decision 12126
Full Text of Decision 12126
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
Disqualification associated with voluntarily leaving reduced to one day; question of duration of less than one week not argued.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision 11842
Full Text of Decision 11842
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
A 2-week suspension seems extremely harsh in the circumstances. I am prepared to reduce the suspension from 2 weeks to 2 days.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 11671
Full Text of Decision 11671
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Summary:
2 week penalty under s. 43 reduced to minimum, 1 week.
Decision 22116
Full Text of Decision 22116
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
multiple |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1692.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Decision A-1692.92
Full Text of Decision A-1692.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
multiple |
|
Summary:
Two refusals of employment leading to two statements of disqualification and one disentitlement. According to the umpire, disqualification and disentitlement cannot be imposed for the same reasons. Error in law, according to the Court. Disqualification and disentitlement relate to different realities and distinct regimes.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Decision 17763
Full Text of Decision 17763
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
multiple |
|
Summary:
Left 2 jobs, one on 5-5 and the second on 29-8. Disqualifications for two 3-week periods upheld.
Decision 12854
Full Text of Decision 12854
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
multiple |
|
Summary:
Disqualified for 6 weeks in 11-85 for leaving voluntarily, 6 weeks in 1-86 for refusing employment and disentitled in 3-86 for non-availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
Decision A-0244.94
Full Text of Decision A-0244.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
Summary:
The disqualification provisions of the Act (s. 27, 28 and 30) are generally recognized as penal sanctions intended "to deter claimants from unjustifiably quitting their job, losing it through their own fault, or failing to avail themselves of employment opportunities" (CUB 11941).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision 24276
Full Text of Decision 24276
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0244.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision 40935
Full Text of Decision 40935
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
weeks of insurable employment excluded |
|
Summary:
Subsection 30(6) provides that no hours of insurable employment in any employment that the claimant loses may be used for the purpose of determining the maximum number of weeks of benefits. The Commission having determined that the claimant quit his job without "just cause", the number of weeks of employment at Kelly's are not counted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
weeks of insurable employment excluded |
|
