Decision 72169
Full Text of Decision 72169
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
Revenue Canada Rulings |
|
Summary:
The claimant and others started a Christian Centre in the year 2000. The Church lost members in 2006 because an adverse publicity. The claimant was then in a position where there was not sufficient monies to pay him and his associates a salary and he felt that they were no longer employed. CRA determined that these people were not operating at arm's length and were therefore not insurable. The Commission cancelled the benefits in line with the CRA ruling. For these reasons, the Umpire dismissed the claimant's appeal. (Similar cases: 72170, 72171 and 72172)
Decision 66604
Full Text of Decision 66604
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
Revenue Canada Rulings |
|
Summary:
Upon a request from the Commission, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) ruled that the claimant's employement was not insurable. The jurisprudence has well established that the Minister of National Revenue, through the CRA, has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of insurable employment and that a CRA ruling can only be appealed to the Tax Court of Canada. The Commission, Boards of Referees and Umpires have no jurisdiction to deal with this issue.
Decision 26405
Full Text of Decision 26405
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
agriculture |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked during 70 hours in a period of 6 days harvesting potatoes on a farm. S. 16 requires 7 or more working days in a year to render this kind of work insurable. Claimant has 9 out of the 10 insured weeks required to qualify. The Board erred in law in holding that she had 10 weeks.
Decision 76124
Full Text of Decision 76124
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
The claimant voluntarily left her employment with I. C. to return to school. At the same time she had a second job with S.T. where she worked from March 23, 2009 to June 11, 2009 and left that second job voluntarily with just cause with 162 insurable hours. Between June 28 and September 19, 2009, she accumulated 369 insurable hours with another employer and was laid off from this third employment. The claimant's applied for benefits and a claim was established on September 20, 2009. The Commission determined that the claimant required 455 insurable hours to be eligible for benefits and that she had not accumulated enough hours to qualify. In the present case the Umpire concluded that the insurable hours accumulated by the claimant in her part time employment for the period of March 23, 2009 to June 11, 2009, to wit 162 hours should be credited to her claim. The appeal by the Commission's is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A-0354.01
Full Text of Decision A-0354.01
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
A question concerning a claimant's number of hours of insurable employment must be determined by an authorized officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Neither the Board of Referees, nor an Umpire, has jurisdiction to determine this question. Decision of the FCA in Haberman (A-0717.98) cited.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0470.00
Full Text of Decision A-0470.00
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
Based on the FCA decision in Haberman (A-0717.98), the Umpire had no jurisdiction to decide the matter at issue, that is, the calculation of the number of hours worked by the claimant which must be decided by an officer of the Department of National Revenue.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51354
Full Text of Decision 51354
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0354.01
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0110.99
Full Text of Decision A-0110.99
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
FCA held that matters concerning hours of insurable employment were matters of insurability for the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency to decide and not for the BOR and Umpire who were limited to issues of entitlement. References made to FCA decisions in Hawryluk (A-0466.98) and Haberman (A-0717.98).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0717.98
Full Text of Decision A-0717.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
The number of insurable hours is a question that shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue. Neither the BOR and correlatively the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant had a sufficient number of insurable hours in insurable employment to qualify for employment insurance benefits. Reference made to other FCA's decisions in Valentine (A-0241.98), Vautour (A-0733.98) and Kaur (A-0487.93).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0466.98
Full Text of Decision A-0466.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
Making reference to FCA decision in Hoek (A-0089.99), the Court held that an insurability issue had to be determined by the Department of National Revenue (now the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency). Neither the BOR or the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine the number of hours in insurable employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 47067A
Full Text of Decision 47067A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0470.00
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0241.98
Full Text of Decision A-0241.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
Insurability issues take one route, i.e., Revenue Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, and entitlement to benefits take another, i.e., the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire. The authority of the Commission to seek an insurability ruling and the insurability ruling itself are issues that should have been appealed before the Tax Court but that were not.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 43357
Full Text of Decision 43357
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0110.99
Decision 38886
Full Text of Decision 38886
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0241.98
Decision 20023A
Full Text of Decision 20023A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0487.93
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0487.93
Full Text of Decision A-0487.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
The making of the ruling was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister. It bound both the Board and the Umpire. It was open to the claimant either to dispute the ruling pursuant to ss. 61(3) itself or to pursue an appeal against it to the Tax Court of Canada pursuant to s. 70.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 22871
Full Text of Decision 22871
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Summary:
The determination of whether employment is insurable employment is one for Revenue Canada and any appeal from the decisions of that Department must be made to the Tax Court of Canada. The Commission is bound by their finding. All it can do is await the decision of the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 76715
Full Text of Decision 76715
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The claimant had to reduce his hours of employment and in so doing, the insurable hours decreased along with his insurable earnings. He had to leave his employment on a permanent basis because of illness; the Commission applied the provisions of subsection 14(4) of the Act and proceeded to calculate his earnings over the last period of employment. The claimant feels it is unfair the Commission calculated the rate on the basis of a reduced number of hours, from 40 to 30 hours. 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 |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision A-0717.98
Full Text of Decision A-0717.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Despite the FCA decision in Hoek (A-0089.99) which determined that Reg. 94.1 is clearly mandatory, the dissenting member held that Reg. 94.1 was not. He was of the view that since the reasons expressed in the Hoek decision did not contain any reference to the interpretative approaches laid down in Abrahams, Hills and Normandin, he considered that he did not have to follow that decision.**NOTE: It was agreed not to appeal this case to the Supreme Court on that particular issue, the Commission being of the opinion that the FCA decision rendered in Hoek represents the correct interpretation of the law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0089.99
Full Text of Decision A-0089.99
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Reg. 94.1 is a provision of substance, not of procedure and is clearly mandatory. It stipulates that weeks of insurable employment that were worked prior to 01-01-97 are converted into hours of insurable employment and this conversion is made on the basis of 35 hours per week worked. It is a provision that applies automatically whenever a worker seeks to be credited for work done prior 01-01-97. It is not a provision which a claimant may choose to invoke or not to invoke.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
calculation |
Decision 42615
Full Text of Decision 42615
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0717.98
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
calculation |
Decision A-0247.96
Full Text of Decision A-0247.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant claimed that because he was employed in insurable employment as the operator of a business, the Commission could not disqualify him from receiving benefits under Reg. 43(1). FCA maintained that this argument was unacceptable because, although the insurability of the employment is an essential condition for entitlement, it is not a guarantee. Furthermore, it added that if the decision in Venditelli (A-800.81) can be interpreted in this way, it should not be used as a precedent.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
contract of services |
|
|
week of unemployment |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 32697
Full Text of Decision 32697
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0247.96
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
contract of services |
|
|
week of unemployment |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 14707
Full Text of Decision 14707
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
He says that it is unfair to deem the money as earnings but not insurable income. It has been raised in previous cases without success. If there is unfairness, to attack the provisions under the FC Act may be the only way the constitutional question canbe addressed. [p. 6]
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0458.81
Full Text of Decision A-0458.81
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The argument that insurability must be determined at the time the claimant is employed rather than in accordance with a statutory provision subsequently amended carries much weight. However, this is not the issue here.
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 A-0733.95
Full Text of Decision A-0733.95
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire erred in law when he allocated pursuant to s. 57 & 58 of the Reg., a sum received by the claimant for unjust dismissal and then treated those weeks as weeks of insurable employment.** FCA stated that a person who has been dismissed or otherwise separated from his or her employment, and receives compensation therefor, ceases to be employed. The fact that the compensation may be allocated for purposes of calculating benefits to some number of weeks following the dismissal doesn't mean that the person continues in that insurable employment which by definition has come to an end.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 11610
Full Text of Decision 11610
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Summary:
If it is necessary to determine whether the arbitration award is insurable earnings that decision cannot be made by the Board but rather by the Minister of National Revenue under s.75.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 22115
Full Text of Decision 22115
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
bankruptcy |
|
Summary:
CEIC maintains that the same amounts not paid because of bankruptcy are considered insurable for the purposes of calculating benefits rate. Depriving someone of their right to benefits because their salary was not paid to them by reason of bankruptcy would amount to penalizing them.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Decision 23067
Full Text of Decision 23067
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Summary:
Stated that commissions paid in 2-90 must be allocated in 11-89 and 12-89 despite the type of pay period which was "weekly, on an annual basis". [NOTE: Under the 11-90 amendments, this responsibility is now given to the Minister of Revenue; ss. 89 and 61(3).
Decision 22189
Full Text of Decision 22189
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Summary:
$5,000 bonus paid for occupancy rate to a real estate rental agent. The effect of this amount was to increase the insurable earnings of the last pay period; it was not spread over the work period. I see no error in the Board's decision.
Decision 18570A
Full Text of Decision 18570A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Summary:
Commission salesman who earned 1 commission over 18 weeks. At the hearing, it was soon clarified that neither party was arguing that only the net commission should be treated as earnings. As neither now wants this question to be answered, I will not deal with it further.
Commission salesman who earned 1 commission over 18 weeks. It appears to me that the Regulations are adequately clear and that the commission of $2,499 must be averaged over the 18 weeks (and not be allocated to 1 week). As per reg. 36.1, earnings to becalculated on same basis.
Decision 20845
Full Text of Decision 20845
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Summary:
I agree that a bonus is insurable for the week in which paid. Here, the payment was based on a percentage of sales of parts and was paid on the 10th of each month as part of claimant's salary. Not in reality a bonus, more in the nature of a commission. UI rate to be recalculated.
Decision 18570
Full Text of Decision 18570
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0818.90
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0818.90
Full Text of Decision A-0818.90
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Summary:
As to the quantum of earnings, we would observe that the provisions of the UI (Collection of Premiums) Regulations as they relate to "commissions paid...on the basis of a pay period" appear singularly inapt to describe a commission received in respect of a single transaction.
Real estate salesman whose employment may or may not be insurable depending on his amount of earnings. Case to be returned to Umpire to decide what was the amount of insurable earnings as a real estate agent and should that amount be allocated to the entire 18 weeks or to one day.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 13167B
Full Text of Decision 13167B
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
decision under appeal |
|
Summary:
Allegedly connived with employer to say that insured held insurable employment. Umpire concluded that insured did not have sufficient number of insurable weeks and dismissed appeal even though case was on appeal to Tax Court of Canada.
Decision 11072
Full Text of Decision 11072
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
decision under appeal |
|
Summary:
Non-insurability ruling reversed by National Revenue and then appealed before Tax Court. The Board held that a benefit period must be established in the meantime. Error of law in that it did not have regard to reg. 50.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0414.92
Full Text of Decision A-0414.92
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
deferred salary leave plans |
|
Summary:
Is to receive 75% of salary over 36 months, the first 9 being the expected leave. After the 9 months, takes 20-week maternity leave followed by 2 years unpaid leave. Will have to reimburse the 75% received if she does not go back to work. Judged it was a non-insurable advance.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
deferred salary leave plans |
|
|
Decision 19352
Full Text of Decision 19352
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
deferred salary leave plans |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0414.92
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
deferred salary leave plans |
|
|
Decision 63780
Full Text of Decision 63780
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
determination of amount |
|
Summary:
The claimant contended that the amount received from the Sun Life Assurance Company during the rate calculation period should have been considered as earnings from insurable employment. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ruled that these monies can not be considered as insurable income. This ruling is binding upon the Board of Referees and upon the Umpire.
Decision 17476
Full Text of Decision 17476
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
determination of amount |
|
Summary:
Director only received $3569 of the $5419 that, according to him, he was supposed to receive thanks to a subsidy granted to the organization sponsoring him. Now in litigation with the organization. According to Revenue Canada, the insurable amount was $3569.
Decision 12863
Full Text of Decision 12863
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
determination of amount |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0726.86
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
overpaid |
|
Decision A-0726.86
Full Text of Decision A-0726.86
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
determination of amount |
|
Summary:
Rate of pay agreed upon hiring was $240 a week minus regular deductions. However, he was required to return $20 weekly to the project promoter due to insufficient funds. As per Umpire, the weekly insurable earnings were $240. Decision overruled: held that earnings were $220.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
overpaid |
|
Decision A-0415.95
Full Text of Decision A-0415.95
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Summary:
Severance pay of $48,892 allocated from 30-6-91 to 20-9-92. During that time, claimant worked from 3-12-91 to 16-6-92 in insurable employment but earned no money and no premiums paid. Stating that the claimant's employment did not end until final allocation of sev. pay, Umpire ordered that benefit rate be calculated on the second last employment. FCA ruled that there was no ambiguity in ss.13(2) of the UI Act and that it could only refer to the 20 weeks of insurable employment which occurred last in time in the qualifying period.**Claimants do not make claims in respect of particular employments but rather in respect of a loss of employment and a corresponding interruption of earnings. A claimant cannot pick and choose which employment or employments in respect of which he or she wishes to make a claim. Commission appeal allowed.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 21466A
Full Text of Decision 21466A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Summary:
Claimant hired to provide services in exchange for a share of profits. Clearly under a contract. Employment ruled insurable. No profits were realized during the period of employment. She has sufficient weeks to establish a benefit period but her insurable earnings are nil.
Decision 18847
Full Text of Decision 18847
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Summary:
Worked as realtor from 1-8-85 to 2-8-86 earning $840 in the 52-week period. From 1-8-86 to 31-1-87 he worked for Canada Trust but had no earnings. Although he had a sufficient number of weeks to establish a claim, the rate of benefit was nil [60% of no earnings in last 20 weeks].
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 14249
Full Text of Decision 14249
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Summary:
Claimant employed 10 weeks as a commissioned salesperson but earned no commission. NR/T ruled that employment was insurable within 3(1)(a) even though no insurable earnings. Weeks included in calculation of rate of benefit. This is in keeping with the legislation.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 11664
Full Text of Decision 11664
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Summary:
Employed 10 months in real estate business. He was employed strictly on commission basis and, as he completed no transactions, he received no remuneration and thus had no insurable employment.
Decision A0368.06
Full Text of Decision A0368.06
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction pursuant to section 90(1) of the Act in supplementing the hours of insurable employment found by the Commission by the number of hours represented by income replacement benefits when it was only open to the Minister of National Revenue to do so. The majority's reasons from this Court in A-717-98 (Haberman) are dispositive in this case: that the Minister of National Revenue has exclusive jurisdiction to make a determination on how many hours of insurable employment a claimant possesses for the purposes of the Act. The Haberman decision has been followed by other decisions in this Court: A-354-01 (Didiadato), A-778-00 (Thiara), A-110-99 (Tuomi) and A-466-98 (Hawryluk).
Decision A-0341.03
Full Text of Decision A-0341.03
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Court found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had erred in finding that they were bound by the insurability ruling, as it is a matter within the Minister or Tax Court jurisdiction. Refer to FCA A-0340.03 for decision.
Decision A-0340.03
Full Text of Decision A-0340.03
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Court found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had erred in finding that they were bound by the insurability ruling, as it is a matter within the Minister or Tax Court jurisdiction.
Decision 57578
Full Text of Decision 57578
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0340.03
Decision 57577
Full Text of Decision 57577
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0341.03
Decision A-0354.01
Full Text of Decision A-0354.01
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
A question concerning a claimant's number of hours of insurable employment must be determined by an authorized officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Neither the Board of Referees, nor an Umpire, has jurisdiction to determine this question. Decision of the FCA in Haberman (A-0717.98) cited.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 52722
Full Text of Decision 52722
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The FCA has stated in a number of decisions [Johanne Lépine Desmarchais (A-0907.88), Balbir Kaur (A-0487.93)] that the Minister of National Revenue has the sole jurisdiction to decide the question of insurability of employment. If the claimant wishes to contest the Revenue Canada decision, this must be done before the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0470.00
Full Text of Decision A-0470.00
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Based on the FCA decision in Haberman (A-0717.98), the Umpire had no jurisdiction to decide the matter at issue, that is, the calculation of the number of hours worked by the claimant which must be decided by an officer of the Department of National Revenue.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 51458
Full Text of Decision 51458
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant had only 858 hours of insurable employment while requiring 910. Claimant is a supply teacher and Commission based its calculation of the claimant's insurable hours by allowing 5.5 hours of insurable work per day rather than 7 hours in accordance with the School Board's policy. Held by Umpire that neither him nor the Board could contradict a ruling of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Decision 51354
Full Text of Decision 51354
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0354.01
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0110.99
Full Text of Decision A-0110.99
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA held that matters concerning hours of insurable employment were matters of insurability for the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency to decide and not for the BOR and Umpire who were limited to issues of entitlement. References made to FCA decisions in Hawryluk (A-0466.98) and Haberman (A-0717.98).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0717.98
Full Text of Decision A-0717.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The number of insurable hours is a question that shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue. Neither the BOR and correlatively the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant had a sufficient number of insurable hours in insurable employment to qualify for employment insurance benefits. Reference made to other FCA's decisions in Valentine (A-0241.98), Vautour (A-0733.98) and Kaur (A-0487.93).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision A-0466.98
Full Text of Decision A-0466.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Making reference to FCA decision in Hoek (A-0089.99), the Court held that an insurability issue had to be determined by the Department of National Revenue (now the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency). Neither the BOR or the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine the number of hours in insurable employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 47067A
Full Text of Decision 47067A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0470.00
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0241.98
Full Text of Decision A-0241.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Insurability issues take one route, i.e., Revenue Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, and entitlement to benefits take another, i.e., the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire. The authority of the Commission to seek an insurability ruling and the insurability ruling itself are issues that should have been appealed before the Tax Court but that were not.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0105.98
Full Text of Decision A-0105.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA confirmed that the determination of employment insurability was unrelated to that of benefit entitlement.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 41543
Full Text of Decision 41543
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimants did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period to establish a claim. Umpire stated that the determination of whether a claimant has had the required number of hours insurable employment during the qualifying period clearly involves a determination as to how many hours the insured person has had in an insurable employment. He concluded that the issue involved in these appeals is not one that falls within the jurisdicition of the BOR and ruled that the matters will be referred back to the Commission which is directed to request rulings from the Department of National Revenue.**Commission requested a judicial review before the FCA because the Umpire erred in law in ruling as he did, the issue was one of insufficient hours of insurable employment and not one of insurable employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Decision A-0932.96
Full Text of Decision A-0932.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Counsel for the claimant argued that the Commission, in considering entitlement to benefit, must take into account the decision rendered by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the insurability of a claimant. FCA maintains that this argument has been definitively invalidated by the recent decision in D’Astoli, A-0999-96.
Decision A-1001.96
Full Text of Decision A-1001.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Decision A-0999.96
Full Text of Decision A-0999.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision A-1000.96
Full Text of Decision A-1000.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Decision 38215
Full Text of Decision 38215
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The BOR overstepped its authority and made a basic error in law by claiming to be competent to calculate the weeks of employment, a function over which the Department of National Revenue alone has discretionary power. Under subsection 61(3) of the Act, that department is the only authority competent to render decisions in that regard.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0733.95
Full Text of Decision A-0733.95
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA declared that the question as to whether and for how long the claimant was in insurable employment is one which neither the BOR nor the Umpire has power to decide.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Decision 35986
Full Text of Decision 35986
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 35987
Full Text of Decision 35987
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 35988
Full Text of Decision 35988
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 25416
Full Text of Decision 25416
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Quotes ss. 61(3), amended in 11-90. It seems clear to me that the question at bar concerns the duration of an insurable week. In Part III of the Act, the word "minister" means the Minister of National Revenue. He is the only person designated to render this decision (duration of insurable employment).
Decision 20023A
Full Text of Decision 20023A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0487.93
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0487.93
Full Text of Decision A-0487.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Employment ruled not insurable (due to nonpayment of wages) by Minister of National Revenue. Ruling overturned by the Board and the Umpire. In our view, the making of the ruling was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister. This was made clear by this Court in LÉPINE-DESMARCHAIS.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 22871
Full Text of Decision 22871
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The determination of whether employment is insurable employment is one for Revenue Canada and any appeal from the decisions of that Department must be made to the Tax Court of Canada. The Commission is bound by their finding. All it can do is await the decision of the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 18570
Full Text of Decision 18570
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0818.90
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Decision A-0818.90
Full Text of Decision A-0818.90
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
For the purposes of these proceedings, the determination of the Minister of National Revenue that the employment was insurable must be taken as final. Case returned to Umpire to decide what was the amount of insurable earnings and the period over which it should be allocated.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Decision 18908
Full Text of Decision 18908
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Has only 19 of the 20 weeks required. Percentage paid each week as 3 public holidays. In the view of the Board, this represented a 20th week. An error in law; insurability is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. In any event, this could not be decided on the basis of Reg. 58(12).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
statutory holidays |
|
Decision 15672
Full Text of Decision 15672
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0907.88
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0907.88
Full Text of Decision A-0907.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
15 of the required 16 weeks plus vacation pay of $384. According to the Umpire, he does not have the authority to decide whether or not vacation pay constitutes a 16th insured week. This authority rests solely with the Minister of National Revenue.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15459
Full Text of Decision 15459
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board obviously erred in law. In accordance with 75(3) and 105, determination of insurability is made by the Minister of Revenue. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review such a decision.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 14872
Full Text of Decision 14872
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Room and board provided by other than employer with no remuneration in cash. Insurability of employment to be decided by Tax Court. As a decision on insurability of earnings is tied to insurability of employment per s.2(k), decision deferred until then.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
Decision 14369
Full Text of Decision 14369
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Whether participation in the Ontario Futures Program at $100 a week, and then work experience placement, is insurable. A note from a Commission officer is no evidence of National Revenue's ruling since neither claimant nor Commission had requested a ruling.
Decision 13999
Full Text of Decision 13999
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Commission's finding [that claimant does not have sufficient weeks to qualify] was based upon National Revenue's ruling that his work engagement was not insurable. This is binding upon the Commission. Claimant's only recourse was to appeal to Minister of National Revenue.
Decision 13367
Full Text of Decision 13367
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The only issue here appeared to be that of insurable employment, one which is exclusively a matter for the Minister of National Revenue. The Board had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter nor did I.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 11978
Full Text of Decision 11978
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Whether employment as mayor of the city was insurable or not is not an issue for decision by Umpire. Any appeal would have had to be made to the Minister of National Revenue and eventually to Tax Court.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
employed |
Decision 11610
Full Text of Decision 11610
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
If it is necessary to determine whether the arbitration award is insurable earnings that decision cannot be made by the Board but rather by the Minister of National Revenue under s.75.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Decision A-0039.85
Full Text of Decision A-0039.85
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The duty to decide questions of entitlement devolves upon the Commission under ss. 39(3). Since the case is concerned with the number of weeks [of insurable employment] and not whether claimant had been in insurable employment, the Tax Court was without jurisdiction. [Act amended since: ss. 61(3) and ss. 35(4)]
Decision A-1496.84
Full Text of Decision A-1496.84
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The question whether free board was insurable earnings to determine the benefit rate was properly appealed to a Board under s.79 and thence to the Umpire under s.80. [p. 10]
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision 11349
Full Text of Decision 11349
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
An Umpire has no jurisdiction to interfere with a National Revenue ruling declaring that claimant was not in insurable employment from 7-83 to 7-84. I cannot engage in illegalities for the purpose of accommodating the claimant.
Decision A-1174.82
Full Text of Decision A-1174.82
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Evidence highly conflicting as to whether claimant worked. The Board found that he did. Commission's submission that the Board had no jurisdiction to decide that employment was insurable found irrelevant by Umpire, the issue simply being whether he worked. The Umpire did not err.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 19509
Full Text of Decision 19509
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
Nursing assistant who worked 60 hours every second week and fails to qualify for maternity UI. Wants to allocate 50% of her working hours to alternate weeks in which she did not work. Reg. 13(1) exempts any week in which earnings are less than 20% and hours less than 15.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-working days |
|
Decision 16902
Full Text of Decision 16902
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
1 day of work followed by 19 full insured weeks followed by 1.5 days of work. 20 weeks required. Case allowed by Board as claimant actually put the time in on the first day even though she was short 2 hours in money. Error of law. Further, overtime in other weeks is of no help.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15885
Full Text of Decision 15885
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
During 2 of the weeks worked, claimant earned less than maximum provided in reg.13. The Board referred to Collection of Premiums Regs to allow the case. As per ANDERSON, the Commission is charged with the administration of UI benefits and the Board should have restricted itself to reg._13.
Claimant worked 20 weeks and requires 20 insured weeks. During 2 weeks she earned less than $106 which was the minimum 20% in 1987 for the purpose of reg._13 and therefore she has only 18 insured weeks.
Decision 11940
Full Text of Decision 11940
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
Bi-monthly pay period; worked one 42 hour week and one 6 hour week. 6 hour week also insurable under Reg. 13(2)(b). Benefit rate reduced accordingly.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
record of employment erroneous |
|
Decision 11514
Full Text of Decision 11514
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
In 1983, 20% of maximum earnings of $350 was $70. Claimant worked 16 hours per week for a total of $59.20. Employment insurable under reg. 13(1) which states not insurable if less than 20% and less than 15 hours a week.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 11077
Full Text of Decision 11077
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
I can see no flexibility in the legislation whereby, given the determination by DNR/T, I can now regard a week of 19 hours and 45 minutes as a week of 20 hours and thus an insurable week.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 09088
Full Text of Decision 09088
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Summary:
Received 30 weeks of UI in qualifying period. Rate of unemployment is 6.4%, so 19 insured weeks are required to requalify. She has 18 weeks plus 1 day. One day does not count as a week by reason of reg. 13(1). This is not a matter over which the Commission has any discretion.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
basic concepts |
benefits paid |
defined |
|
Decision 14872
Full Text of Decision 14872
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
Summary:
Room and board provided by other than employer with no remuneration in cash. Insurability of employment to be decided by Tax Court. As a decision on insurability of earnings is tied to insurability of employment per s.2(k), [decision deferred until then].
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-1496.84
Full Text of Decision A-1496.84
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
Summary:
Exclusion of the value of the free accommodation and horse board from claimant's insurable earnings was clearly contrary to s.3(1)(b) of the UI Collection of Premiums Regs. Plainly, these had some value. Perverse to decide that there was no value. [p. 8]
The question whether free board was insurable earnings to determine the benefit rate was properly appealed to a Board under s.79 and thence to the Umpire under s.80. [p. 10]
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision 19509
Full Text of Decision 19509
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-working days |
|
Summary:
Nursing assistant who worked 60 hours every second week and fails to qualify for maternity UI. Wants to allocate 50% of her working hours to alternate weeks in which she did not work. Reg. 13(1) exempts any week in which earnings are less than 20% and hours less than 15.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Decision 18434
Full Text of Decision 18434
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-working days |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0673.90
Decision A-0673.90
Full Text of Decision A-0673.90
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-working days |
|
Summary:
Claimant was employed on a schedule 10 days on 4 days off. The 4 days off subsequent to the last day worked give the extra or 20th week she required to qualify for benefits. Upheld by FC without comment.
Decision A-0097.81
Full Text of Decision A-0097.81
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
non-working days |
|
Summary:
Ontario teacher on leave from 23-3-79. Leave terminated 29-6-79. From that date, she was in exactly the same position as other teachers who taught a full school year. PETTS held that such teachers are paid for July and August and there is no interruption of earnings.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
teaching |
leave terminating with end of school year |
|
|
teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 50998
Full Text of Decision 50998
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notice pay |
|
Summary:
Claimant has 889 hours of insurable employment instead of the 910 hours required. Modified ROE submitted indicating a $728 pay in lieu of notice after a complaint to Labour Standards. Amount can be used to raise the insurable earnings but cannot generate hours of insurable employment.
Decision 15138A
Full Text of Decision 15138A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notice pay |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 17 instead of the 20 required insured weeks. She alleges that the 6 weeks pay in lieu of notice should be considered as insurable earnings, thus crediting her with an additional 6 weeks of insurable employment.
Decision 15410
Full Text of Decision 15410
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notice pay |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0788.88
Decision A-0788.88
Full Text of Decision A-0788.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notice pay |
|
Summary:
The practical application of ss. 36(6) leads me to conclude that the amount paid by way of notice without the employee in fact having worked should be regarded as increasing the insurable earnings but not as an additional insured week. Upheld by FC without comment.
Decision 13393
Full Text of Decision 13393
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notice pay |
|
Summary:
18 weeks instead of 20, however he was paid 2 weeks in lieu of notice ruled not insurable. The question of whether employment is insurable or not is solely within the jurisdiction of Revenue Canada.
Decision 25717
Full Text of Decision 25717
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notification to interested parties |
|
Summary:
Request made to the Minister of Revenue by the Commission. Held that the claimant was entitled to be heard before the Minister rendered a decision under s. 61.
Decision 11209
Full Text of Decision 11209
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
notification to interested parties |
|
Summary:
Ss.61(5) requires an application for determination and notification to employer and claimant. No evidence that this procedure was followed. I was informed by Commission that the insurability ruling was an informal request only. Formal ruling required.
Decision 76460
Full Text of Decision 76460
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
The claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits for failing to accumulate a sufficient number of hours of insurable employment under section 7 of the Employment Insurance Act. He needed to have accumulated in his qualifying period at least 700 hours, and he had only 442 hours to his credit. Even extending the period did nothing to help the claimant qualify because he was receiving payments from the CSST at that time. The claimant attended his appeal hearing, and did not provide any valid ground of appeal that showed the slightest error in the calculation of the insurable hours the appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 53548
Full Text of Decision 53548
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
Because of a strike, the claimant failed to qualify for maternity benefits as she had only accumulated 160 hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period. She argues that her equality rights under S. 15 of the Charter are violated and she maintains that she is being discriminated against on the basis of gender. Held that all claimants for regular or special benefits, irrespective of gender, are treated in the same manner by the EIA. No claimant, male or female, is entitled to benefits if they fail to have sufficient hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period as a result of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
labour dispute |
Decision A-0773.00
Full Text of Decision A-0773.00
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
Issue: Can a BOR or an Umpire suspend an extra hours penalty (following the issuance of a notice of violation) imposed by the Commission pending the determination of an appeal against the penalty itself? No. The FCA held that the principle of criminal justice that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is not applicable when the Commission has exercised its power to impose an administrative penalty on a person whom it believes is in breach of a statutory duty.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision A-0196.01
Full Text of Decision A-0196.01
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
Claimant accumulated 594 hours of insurable employment, instead of the 595 hours required. She was short one hour of work in order to be eligible for benefits but the Act does not allow any discrepancy and provides no discretion. Regretfully, the application for judicial review must be allowed.
Decision 50691
Full Text of Decision 50691
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0196.01
Decision 49609
Full Text of Decision 49609
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0773.00
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision A-0717.98
Full Text of Decision A-0717.98
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Summary:
Despite the FCA decision in Hoek (A-0089.99) which determined that Reg. 94.1 is clearly mandatory, the dissenting member held that Reg. 94.1 was not. He was of the view that since the reasons expressed in the Hoek decision did not contain any reference to the interpretative approaches laid down in Abrahams, Hills and Normandin, he considered that he did not have to follow that decision.**NOTE: It was agreed not to appeal this case to the Supreme Court on that particular issue, the Commission being of the opinion that the FCA decision rendered in Hoek represents the correct interpretation of the law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0089.99
Full Text of Decision A-0089.99
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
calculation |
Summary:
Reg. 94.1 is a provision of substance, not of procedure and is clearly mandatory. It stipulates that weeks of insurable employment that were worked prior to 01-01-97 are converted into hours of insurable employment and this conversion is made on the basis of 35 hours per week worked. It is a provision that applies automatically whenever a worker seeks to be credited for work done prior 01-01-97. It is not a provision which a claimant may choose to invoke or not to invoke.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Decision 43269
Full Text of Decision 43269
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
calculation |
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0089.99
Decision 42615
Full Text of Decision 42615
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
calculation |
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0717.98
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Decision 38101
Full Text of Decision 38101
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Claimant submits that the employer calculated the work weeks according to the employer's guide and maintains that if this is the proper method for assessing the employer, it should be appropriate for calculating the number of insurable weeks. Unfortunately, the purpose of the employer's guide is to facilitate the calculation of payroll deductions rather than to determine benefit entitlement. Under section 36(6) of the Regulations, the calendar week is to be used to determine entitlement.
Decision A-0295.96
Full Text of Decision A-0295.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Differences in treatment due to application of s. 36.2 are in no way groundless, since they are intended to bring the number of weeks of insurable employment into line with the number of premiums paid, which is quite legitimate in an insurance system involving salary-based premiums from employers and employees. Umpire erred in finding para. 36.2(b) of the Regulations ultra vires and refusing to apply it.
Decision 26620
Full Text of Decision 26620
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Insurable weeks are to be calculated using the definition of weeks in s. 2: the 7-day period commencing on a Sunday and ending on the following Saturday. Ss. 36(6) limits the insurable weeks to total calendar weeks. Claimant has 20 weeks using the employer's pay periods but the time period covered only 19 calendar weeks.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Decision A-0592.92
Full Text of Decision A-0592.92
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Claimant worked from 16-11-89 (Thursday) to 28-3-90 (Wednesday), that is exactly 19 full pay weeks. A minimum of 20 was required to become eligible for UI. The week begins on the Sunday according to s. 2. The 18 full calendar weeks plus the 2 partial calendar weeks provide him with 20 weeks.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
Decision 20971
Full Text of Decision 20971
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0592.92
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
Decision 18532A
Full Text of Decision 18532A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Held that as claimant worked on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday in week 1 of a bi-weekly pay period which ran from Thursday to the second following Wednesday and as reg. 13(1) was met with respect to 2 weeks' earnings, this gave him credit for 2 insured weeks.
Decision 20969
Full Text of Decision 20969
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
According to CEIC, the insured has only 19 weeks; he would have 20 if weeks were counted from Sunday to Saturday. Referring to CUB-17067 and 15272 and applying the definition of "week" in Section 2, the number of insurable weeks is 20.
Decision 15468A
Full Text of Decision 15468A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
Claimant has 18 weeks instead of 20 in 52 weeks counted back from 5-10-87. If claim antedated to last day worked, 23-9-87, he would have lost the insurable week in which 23-9 fell resulting in 19 and not 20 insured weeks.
Decision A-0116.79
Full Text of Decision A-0116.79
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Summary:
8 weeks of insurable employment ending on Friday, 2-12. 8th week may be counted if the benefit period starts on the following Sunday, 4-12, but not if it starts on the preceding Sunday, 27-11.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
legislative authority |
acquired rights |
|
Decision 26620
Full Text of Decision 26620
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Insurable weeks are to be calculated using the definition of weeks in s. 2: the 7-day period commencing on a Sunday and ending on the following Saturday. Ss. 36(6) limits the insurable weeks to total calendar weeks. Claimant has 20 weeks using the employer's pay periods but the time period covered only 19 calendar weeks.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
calculation |
Decision A-0310.93
Full Text of Decision A-0310.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Because the insured had held down two different jobs during two distinct parts of the same week, the umpire counted each part of the week as a week of employment. It seems to us obvious that he committed an error in law. Reg. 36(6) cited. Referral to O'CONNOR and CLOUTIER M.
Decision 22476
Full Text of Decision 22476
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0310.93
Decision 18627B
Full Text of Decision 18627B
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Claimant had 25 weeks of employment according to the two Records of Employment on file. However, 8 weeks overlapped and were earned during the same calendar week leaving only 17 insured weeks of employment, whereas she required 19 to qualify.
Decision 21403
Full Text of Decision 21403
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
What reg. 36 means, in effect, is that in any given period of time there cannot be more "weeks of insurable employment" than there are calendar weeks or part weeks. Week is defined in the Act. That period of 30-1-90 to 24-2-90 consists of 25 days being 4 weeks or part weeks.
Decision 19928
Full Text of Decision 19928
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Worked for 2 employers during the same week; Board came to conclusion this was not relevant. Board committed error in law as only one week of insurable employment can be considered for a calendar week under Reg. 36(6).
Decision 18532
Full Text of Decision 18532
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Employer's bi-weekly pay period runs from Thursday to the 2nd following Wednesday. Claimant worked 5 days, from Thursday to the following Tuesday. He contends he has 2 insured weeks based on the definition of a week in 2(1). I agree provided that reg. 13(1) is met.
Decision 17607
Full Text of Decision 17607
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Eligibility is based on insurable employment, not on insurable earnings. Vacation pay would increase the amount of income that was insured, but it cannot give one an additional insured week. Insured weeks cannot be greater than number of weeks of employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Decision 17067
Full Text of Decision 17067
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Claimant submits that the definition of week in 2(1)(y) does not apply to calculation of insurable weeks which ought to coincide with pay periods and premiums. Regardless of the logic of this argument, reg. 36(6) makes it clear that 2(1)(y) applies.
Decision 16933
Full Text of Decision 16933
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
The week is defined as a period of 7 days, beginning on Sunday. As the period from 30-12-86 to 26-4-87 covers only 18 weeks and in view of Reg. 36(6), the insured person could not have 19 or 20 weeks during that period.
Decision 16554
Full Text of Decision 16554
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Claimant has 9 instead of the 10 weeks required. His employment in week 14-9 covered 2 pay periods. Week defined in UI Act. One cannot be credited for 2 insured weeks in one week even if he had 2 pay periods in it.
Decision 15272
Full Text of Decision 15272
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Record of Employment shows 2 weeks from 24-6 (Tuesday) to 27-6 (Friday), this period falling in 2 distinct pay periods. Para. 2(1)(y) defines weeks as commencing on Sunday. This becomes a little more clear if read in conjunction with reg. 36(6). The period at issue can only count as 1 week.
Decision 15187
Full Text of Decision 15187
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
There are only 14 calendar weeks between first and last day worked. Record of Employment was explained but this included some duplication of weeks. There can be no more than one insured week for a week worked. Reg. 36(6) makes it clear.
Decision 14285
Full Text of Decision 14285
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
The Board found claimant has 16 insured weeks. He commenced work 30-12-85 and terminated 11-4-86. There are 15 calendar weeks in that period, one of which not insurable. The number of insurable weeks cannot exceed the calendar weeks.
Decision 14182
Full Text of Decision 14182
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Is it possible to accumulate 11 insurable weeks from 18-5 to 24-7-86 [a 10-week period]? Unfortuntately not, because of Reg. 36(6).
Decision 14100
Full Text of Decision 14100
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Record of Employment shows 7 weeks from 7-7-86 to 15-8-86. After review of the calendar for that period, I am satisfied that the number of weeks was 6, not 7. Claimant testified that in the last week he had worked double shifts some days. Reg. 36(6) must be strictly adhered to.
Decision 11312
Full Text of Decision 11312
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Reg. 36(6) applies here. Claimant worked from 7-6-84 (Thursday) to 21-7-84 (Saturday). It is clear that there are only 7 calendar weeks in this period. The employer was correct in stating 8 insurable weeks but under the legislation, calendar weeks must be used.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0438.81
Full Text of Decision A-0438.81
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Summary:
Two separate periods of employment in same week. Week starts on Sunday, under s. 2. Anyone who works for only one calendar week cannot be regarded as having worked 2 weeks. Reg. 36(6) does not apply where there has been no interruption of earnings.
Decision 37807B
Full Text of Decision 37807B
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
outside Canada |
|
Summary:
Weeks of employment in the United States cannot be considered as weeks insurable employment if Canadian premiums are not deducted for the employment.
Decision 27041
Full Text of Decision 27041
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
overtime |
|
Summary:
Overtime paid to claimant following complaint to Labour Board. The Board erred in law by allocating overtime as insurable earnings in each week worked and by ignoring Revenue Canada ruling that it was insurable earnings only for the last pay period.
Decision 20090
Full Text of Decision 20090
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
reserve canadian forces |
|
Summary:
After a thorough examination of the jurisprudence, the Umpire dismissed the argument that reg. 14(c) which disqualifies employment for less than 30 days in the reserve forces as insurable employment is contrary to s.15 of the Charter.
Decision A-0457.02
Full Text of Decision A-0457.02
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
retroactive pay adjustment |
|
Summary:
The claimant received a pay equity retroactive payment and the Commission refused to reconsider her benefit rate on claims established from working periods for which the pay equity had been paid. The Federal Court of Appeal determined that pay equity were pay adjustments or retroactive pay increases within the meaning of 23(1)(b) of the EI Regulations.
Decision 54429
Full Text of Decision 54429
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
retroactive pay adjustment |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0457.02
Decision 69238
Full Text of Decision 69238
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
severance pay |
|
Summary:
The Canada Revenue Agency made a ruling which is binding, subject to appeal to the Tax Court. The Board of Referees erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction when it ruled that the severance pay should be included as insurable earnings.
Decision 28545
Full Text of Decision 28545
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
severance pay |
|
Summary:
In finding that severance packages (insurable earnings from employment) are used to calculate allocation periods and should also be considered as insurable earnings from which UI premiums should be deducted, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction. This comes under Revenue Canada pursuant to s. 61.
Decision 19396
Full Text of Decision 19396
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
severance pay |
|
Summary:
The Board erred when it directed that there be included in the amount of insurable earnings during the 20 qualifying weeks a weekly sum attributable to severance and vacation pay because no premiums were payable on those amounts.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Decision S-0638.87
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
spouse |
|
Summary:
S. 14 made under para. 4(3)(d) for the purpose of exempting from insurable employment the employment of a person whose spouse controls more than 40% of the shares was repealed by implication upon the Human Rights Act coming into force in 1977. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed.
Decision A-0638.87
Full Text of Decision A-0638.87
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
spouse |
|
Summary:
S. 14 made under para. 4(3)(d) for the purpose of exempting from insurable employment the employment of a person whose spouse controls more than 40% of the shares was repealed by implication upon the Human Rights Act coming into force in 1977. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed.
Decision 18908
Full Text of Decision 18908
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
statutory holidays |
|
Summary:
Has only 19 of the 20 weeks required. Percentage paid each week as 3 public holidays. In the view of the Board, this represented a 20th week. An error in law; insurability is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. In any event, this could not be decided on the basis of Reg. 58(12).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0037.90
Full Text of Decision A-0037.90
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
tips |
|
Summary:
As per SC in CP Ltd, the tips paid directly by customers to a waiter are not insurable. The employer's control is seen as being imperative. Ss. 3(1) amended since, i.e. in 1985, but control and payment by the employer are still mandatory. Upheld in FC.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 17625
Full Text of Decision 17625
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
tips |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0037.90
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 21679
Full Text of Decision 21679
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Summary:
Has 19 insured weeks instead of 20. He argued that 3_1/2 weeks vacation pay at layoff had not been considered. The Act is quite specific with respect to vacation pay, that it does not constitute insurable weeks which would have assisted in meeting the required number of weeks.
Decision 19396
Full Text of Decision 19396
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Summary:
The Board erred when it directed that there be included in the amount of insurable earnings during the 20 qualifying weeks a weekly sum attributable to severance and vacation pay because no premiums were payable on those amounts.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
severance pay |
|
Decision 18779
Full Text of Decision 18779
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Summary:
In the view of the Board, the two weeks of general vacation in the construction industry from 20-12 to 4-1 are insurable. An error in law. The percentage paid into a trust fund and given back to the workforce during the period of general vacation must be distributed over each pay period.
Decision 17607
Full Text of Decision 17607
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Summary:
Eligibility is based on insurable employment, not on insurable earnings. Vacation pay would increase the amount of income that was insured, but it cannot give one an additional insured week. Insured weeks cannot be greater than number of weeks of employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Decision A-0907.88
Full Text of Decision A-0907.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Summary:
15 of the required 16 weeks plus vacation pay of $384. According to the Umpire, he does not have the authority to decide whether or not vacation pay constitutes a 16th insured week. This authority rests solely with the Minister of National Revenue.
The Umpire could not, without having committed an error of law, conclude that claimant had held insurable employment for the week immediately following her dismissal by reason only of her receipt of a vacation pay allocated to that week under s. 58.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15672
Full Text of Decision 15672
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0907.88
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51746
Full Text of Decision 51746
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Summary:
Claimant reduced her working hours in order to ensure carrying her pregnancy to full term. She was insured under a wage loss insurance plan and received weekly indemnity payments under that plan which supplemented her wages. Claimant contends that the payments ought to be considered insured earnings and be taken into account in calculating her weekly rate. Request denied by Commission. BOR allowed claimant's appeal but Umpire held that BOR had no jurisdiction as that jurisdiction by statute is reserved for resolution to Revenue Canada.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-1206.92
Full Text of Decision A-1206.92
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Summary:
Stopped working due to illness but salary continued to be paid as per a contract clause. 75% reimbursed by insurance. While he had an obligation to endorse the cheques paid to him by the insurance company over to the employer, this does not alter the character of the payments. Concurred by FC.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 21366
Full Text of Decision 21366
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1206.92
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 16480
Full Text of Decision 16480
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Summary:
The earnings paid under the wage loss insurance plan do not constitute insurable earnings. The legislation, supported by constant precedent, states that any payment of this kind, unless paid exclusively by the employer, does not constitute insurable earnings.
Decision 12089
Full Text of Decision 12089
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Summary:
Compensation equivalent to 2/3 of salary paid under group wage-loss indemnity plan not insurable, although 1/3 paid by employer as sick leave is insurable.
Decision 13410
Full Text of Decision 13410
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0209.87
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision A-0209.87
Full Text of Decision A-0209.87
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Summary:
Non-insurable earnings (workers' compensation) received in certain weeks together with insurable salary as top-up. Rate of benefit based on top-up only. Ss. 18(2) and para. 57(2)(b) of no help to claimant. S. 24 does not offend Charter.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision A-0462.85
Full Text of Decision A-0462.85
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Summary:
Claimant held his position for a 24-week period during which he suffered injury and was off work 29 days. Workmen's compensation received not insurable and claimant short of number of weeks required to qualify. Upheld in FC without comments.