Summary of Issue: Insurability

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:
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:
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:

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:

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:

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:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
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:

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:

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:

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:

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:
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:
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:

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:
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:

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:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
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:

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:

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:

Decision 18908 Full Text of Decision 18908

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts	insurability	statutory holidays

Summary:

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:

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:

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.

Report a problem on this page

Date modified:: 2019-03-01