Summary of Issue: Relation With Refusal Of Work

Decision 40393 Full Text of Decision 40393

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.

Decision A-0686.93 Full Text of Decision A-0686.93

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.

Decision 23391 Full Text of Decision 23391

Refer to: A-0686.93

Decision 22116 Full Text of Decision 22116

Refer to: A-1692.92

Decision A-1692.92 Full Text of Decision A-1692.92

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.