Decision A-0486.01
Full Text of Decision A-0486.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
There was cogent evidence on the record before the Board to support the Board's finding. In both her Application for Unemployment Benefits and her Training Course Questionnaire, the claimant indicated that she was not ready to work and not going to be looking for work during the course. This is sufficient to dispose of the present application.
Decision 51632
Full Text of Decision 51632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0486.01
Decision 40584
Full Text of Decision 40584
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
There is a presumption that a person enrolled in a course of full-time study is generally not available for work within the meaning of the Act. This presumption is capable of being rebutted by proof of exceptional circumstances. Evidence of a limited job search for evening and weekend employment is not proof of exceptional circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision A-0168.93
Full Text of Decision A-0168.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
Left her job in Vancouver to relocate in Quebec City with husband. Attends a course of French for non-francophones in university to become employable. As claimant clearly stated that she was not available while taking her language course, the Umpire erred. The claimant failed to prove that she was available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
language at work |
|
Decision 22258
Full Text of Decision 22258
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0168.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
language at work |
|
Decision A-0442.91
Full Text of Decision A-0442.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board decided that the presumption of non-availability had been rebutted even in the absence of a pattern of work/study. What is at issue here is a question of facts determined by the Board, not by an Umpire. Neither perverse nor capricious finding, said the Umpire. Upheld by the FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
Decision 19462
Full Text of Decision 19462
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0442.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
Decision 20599
Full Text of Decision 20599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
