Decision 40393
Full Text of Decision 40393
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Summary:
Claimant refused a job offer in his trade as a tinsmith and chose to wait for an uncertain offer from his former employer. He alleged that he had demonstrated his availability by presenting a list that was not specific in terms of dates and interviews. Referring to Michel (A.692.92), Umpire found that a claimant who is disqualified for refusing employment may occasionally act in a manner which justifies disentitlement for non-availability.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
refusal of work |
prospect of other work |
|
|
board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Decision A-0686.93
Full Text of Decision A-0686.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Summary:
Even though the Act does not provide a definition of the concept of availability, ss. 41(8) makes it clear that "suitable employment" is at the core of the concept and, according to s. 27, the suitability is to be assessed with reference to one's personal circumstances and duration of unemployment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
teaching |
availability for work |
restriction |
substitute |
Decision 23391
Full Text of Decision 23391
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0686.93
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
teaching |
availability for work |
restriction |
substitute |
Decision 22116
Full Text of Decision 22116
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
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 |
|
|
basic concepts |
disqualification |
multiple |
|
Decision A-1692.92
Full Text of Decision A-1692.92
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Summary:
The actions of a claimant on which his disqualification is based (sect. 27) can also indicate behaviour that justifies disentitlement of benefits (sect. 14). For example, refusing employment twice can indicate that a claimant is in fact not available for work.
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 |
|
|
basic concepts |
disqualification |
multiple |
|