Decision A0109.10
Full Text of Decision A0109.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The claimant was denied EI benefits on the basis that she was not available for work, as she had enrolled in a full-time course. The FCA concluded that both the BOR and the Umpire did appreciate the presumption of non-availability and that it could be rebutted through proof of exceptional circumstances. The FCA also dismissed the AGC's argument that the BOR's reasons were inadequate. In the FCA's view, the BOR provided comprehensive reasons. It gave reasons for discounting statements made by the claimant in the questionnaire in favour of the oral testimony. Moreover, the FCA agreed with the Umpire's conclusion that the BOR did not err in its assessment of the claimant's credibility or the statements regarding her availability for work.
Decision 69597A
Full Text of Decision 69597A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The claimant, on his own initiative, enrolled in a training course which required him to attend 5 days a week from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. He is devoting his attention to the training and will be available again once training ends. The claimant stated that he was spending 1 to 2 hours daily on job searches. However, he stated that these searches were for jobs as a truck driver as soon as he qualified at the end of his course. There is a presumption that claimants enrolled in full-time training courses are not available for work. This presumption is reputable however and the burden is on the claimant to prove his availability. The Board of Referees made an error because looking for future work certainly does not demonstrate immediate availability for work as is required by the legislation and the case law. According to the Umpire, the claimant made it clear he was not ready to accept employment while attending his course. Then, he has not proven his availability within the meaning of the Act.
Decision A-0556.04
Full Text of Decision A-0556.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The claimant took leave from his employer to complete his studies but remained available for work on weekends. The Federal Court of Appeal stated that full time studies create a reputable presumption that the student is not available for work. The presumption can be rebutted only in "exceptional circumstances". The Court concluded that the lack of complete rupture in the employment relationship and some labour attachment does not mean that a person is available for work - there must not be any restrictions on the availability which would limit their chance of obtaining employment.
Decision 61560
Full Text of Decision 61560
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0556.04
Decision A-0683.01
Full Text of Decision A-0683.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The claimant said she could have become available if she had found a job because she could pursue her courses during the evening. The Court states that a full-time student must be able to overcome the presumption of non-availability for work, and is of the opinion that the claimant was not available for work under the EI Act.
Decision 56387
Full Text of Decision 56387
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Claimant is on a full time course and she is available for work after school and on weekends only. Referring to FCA decisions in Landry (A-0719.91) and Faucher (A-0056.96), Umpire held that the claimant had set personal conditions under which she would return to the labour market and that she had not proven that she was available and willing to quit her course to accept a job. Commission's appeal allowed.
Decision 52330
Full Text of Decision 52330
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0683.01
Decision 40724
Full Text of Decision 40724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The general principle in cases of availability is that a person is not available for benefits while attending a full-time course at university. This is not an irrebuttable presumption and may be overcome if the person previously worked full-time and attended full-time university courses. Claimant indicated she worked full-time as a nursing supervisor in 1995 and did not attend university until the fall of 1996 and consequently would not qualify under this exceptions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work not at same time |
|
Decision 40584
Full Text of Decision 40584
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
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 |
onus of proof |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 25153
Full Text of Decision 25153
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
In order to rebut the presumption of non-availability in cases of this nature, a claimant must be able to demonstrate, by way of very convincing evidence, that obtaining employment is his principal concern and that his interest in the course of instruction is only secondary.
Decision 22495
Full Text of Decision 22495
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The fundamental rule is that students engaged in full-time courses of study are presumed to be unavailable for work in the absence of any referral by the Commission. This is a rebuttable presumption, but very strong and compelling evidence of availability is required to rebut it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work long ago |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision 20021
Full Text of Decision 20021
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0719.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision A-0719.91
Full Text of Decision A-0719.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, established jurisprudence has confirmed that a student taking full-time courses is not available. This rule is subject to 2 exceptions: a student referred to a course and the one who has established a pattern of work and studies. Errow in law. Observation too categorical.
While it is true that there is a presumption against the full-time student, this is a presumption of fact which certainly is not irrebuttable. It can be rebutted by proof of exceptional circumstances. The work record is only one example. There may be others.
Strictly speaking, the "first exception", a student referred to the course, is not an exception: it is actually a statutory rule (see s. 26(1)) which provides that a claimant who meets certain conditions is deemed to be unemployed and available for work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 19716B
Full Text of Decision 19716B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
It is for these reasons that a strong presumption exists when one attends university full-time. It will be rebutted only in the rarest and most exceptional cases. This doctrine is so ingrained in the UI scheme that it requires a specific provision to exempt one from its rigours.
Decision 20247
Full Text of Decision 20247
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attending a full-time course raises a presumption of non-availability. But claimant may rebut it by evidence to the contrary. Merely stating she is available and she would leave the course does not suffice. Obtaining work must be a primary concern. Convincing proof is job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work long ago |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 18696
Full Text of Decision 18696
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
A person is not automatically unavailable because he is attending a full-time course. A strong presumption, however, arises that this is the case. That presumption can be rebutted. Primary factors: one's intention and whether he would leave the course if work were found.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Decision 18430
Full Text of Decision 18430
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
While attendance at a course does not automatically result in disentitlement, it does raise a strong presumption of non-availability. A mere indication that he would quit if a job were offered is not enough: the claimant must actively seek out work eachday.
Decision 18037
Full Text of Decision 18037
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The Board seems to say: claimant was attending a full-time course therefore he was unavailable. Attendance at a full-time course raises a presumption of non-availability but that presumption can be rebutted. There is reason to conclude that the Board applied the wrong legal test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
factors to consider |
|
Decision 14658A
Full Text of Decision 14658A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
There is a presumption of non-availability. It may be rebutted by evidence showing that obtaining work is the prime concern and the course is secondary. One must do more than declare willingness to quit course. An extensive job search is the clearest proof.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discrimination |
|
Decision 16974
Full Text of Decision 16974
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
A presumption arises and may be rebutted by evidence showing that obtaining work is the prime concern and the interest in the course is only secondary. The most convincing proof consists of an intensive and continuous job search. UI not intended to subsidize education.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 16310
Full Text of Decision 16310
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
A presumption of fact exists regarding non-availability; it can be quashed when the school calendar can be changed, when the insured is prepared to stop at the first appropriate job offer or when he has both worked and studied at the same time in the past.
Decision 16097
Full Text of Decision 16097
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
There is a very heavy presumption that individuals who are enrolled in courses during normal working hours are not seriously in the labour market but have as their first objective the completion of the course. [p._2]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 14391
Full Text of Decision 14391
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Case law clearly indicates presumption of non-availability in case of a student, which presumption person can only rebut where can prove history of working around hours or days of courses.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
Decision 14361
Full Text of Decision 14361
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Agree that full-time course not necessarily equal to non-availability. However, this creates presumption that insured must rebut by showing that int he past she has held employment while attending a course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
time required for studies |
|
Decision 14247
Full Text of Decision 14247
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
For claimants who are taking full-time courses of instruction there is a very heavy onus which they must overcome to satisfy the requirements in order to be eligible for benefits.
Decision 11679A
Full Text of Decision 11679A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Error of law to say that availability evenings and weekends is not what Act requires. While there is presumption that students not available, not sufficient to say this; must examine facts of case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
extent of availability required |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 13003
Full Text of Decision 13003
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Although being enrolled in a full-time course is not an absolute bar to UI benefits, there is a presumption raised that the student is not available for employment while so attending. Real estate course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision 12384
Full Text of Decision 12384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The claimant's contention that attendance at school does not mean non-availability is correct in the sense that it is not conclusive. However it does raise a presumption which he had not rebutted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
substantial fees paid |
|
Decision 12377
Full Text of Decision 12377
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The Commission has correctly stated that there is a very strong presumption against availability if one is attending a full-time course but incorrectly stated that proof cannot be made if course taken during normal working hours.
While there is a presumption, it is only a presumption and, like all legal presumptions, it can be rebutted by credible evidence.
Decision 12381
Full Text of Decision 12381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attendance at full-time course does not preclude from being available. It raises a presumption of non-availability. Where one is proceeding towards certificate, paying own tuition and living expenses, and subject of the course is to be one's life's work, very strong presumption.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
employment left |
|
Decision 12358
Full Text of Decision 12358
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attending a non-referred course does not automatically exclude from UI. Disentitlement follows not as a statutory consequence but only because one has not discharged the presumption of non-availability. What is raised is a presumption only that may be rebutted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 12145
Full Text of Decision 12145
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attendance at a full-time course may not in itself be sufficient to warrant a disentitlement, yet it nevertheless raises a presumption of non-availability and the onus is on the claimant to rebut this; disentitlement not automatic.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Decision 11989
Full Text of Decision 11989
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The fundamental rule is that a student attending a full-time course is not available for regular employment and his willingness to accept work during available hours even accompanied by searches is insufficient to set aside the presumption of non-availability unless work pattern.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
Decision 11879
Full Text of Decision 11879
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attendance at a full-time course when claimant not referred to it raises a strong presumption of non-availability and the onus is on claimant to rebut this. The Act does not provide for an automatic disentitlement but a claimant must be available for work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
change of course |
|
|
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Decision 11661
Full Text of Decision 11661
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Where a claimant has enrolled in a full-time course there is a strong presumption that the claimant is not available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 11658
Full Text of Decision 11658
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Taking a course not recommended by CEIC is not conclusive that claimant is not available. S.39 simply deems availability if course recommended. Enrollment in a non-recognized course raises a presumption that claimant is not available and it rests upon him to prove otherwise.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision 11352
Full Text of Decision 11352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attendance at a full-time course does not automatically warrant a disentitlement. As a general rule however, there exists a presumption that a student pursuing a full-time course is not in the labour market.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
extent of availability required |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
Decision 11286
Full Text of Decision 11286
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
There is a presumption against claimants who are taking a full-time course that they are not available. Nevertheless, there are circumstances where this presumption can be rebutted.
Decision 11279
Full Text of Decision 11279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
There is a presumption that a claimant is not available when he is following a full-time course. There is no doubt that this presumption is rebuttable provided claimant can show by his conduct his sincerity in being prepared to give up the course if work available.
Decision 11227
Full Text of Decision 11227
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Jurisprudence has firmly established that in only the rarest and most exceptional of individual cases has a full-time student been able to prove availability. The presumption is always very strong against him.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision 11039
Full Text of Decision 11039
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
It has been held by many Umpires that registration in a full-time course of instruction generally implies that the claimant is not available for work. The onus is thus clearly on the claimant to prove otherwise.
Decision 11040
Full Text of Decision 11040
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Several conditions to be met for entitlement to UI. For student, availability is main obstacle. Very strong presumption that full-time student not unemployed or available. Presumption not irrebutable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
interruption |
short period of time |
Decision 11033
Full Text of Decision 11033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Instances in our case law where student has discharged burden of proof imposed by Act are rare. Presumption of non-availability very strong against him. On other hand, disentitlement not automatic.
Decision 10937
Full Text of Decision 10937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
The Board considered the jurisprudence according to which there is a presumption of non-availability. It concluded that claimant had rebutted the presumption, her primary concern was to become employed, the 2-year course was of secondary importance. It could conclude as it did.
