Decision 72884
Full Text of Decision 72884
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The claimant did not provide his correct address when he filed his August 28, 2005 claim for benefits. As a result, the Commission decreased the claimant's benefit rate from $413.00 to $398.00 and found that he was entitled to only 21 weeks of benefits rather than 42 weeks. He said that his place of residence was in the Magdalen Islands. In July 2007, the claimant informed the Commission that he had moved and provided a new address in Montreal. He told the investigating officer that his usual place of residence was in Montreal, that he received his financial documents there and that he had a lease there that ended in 2008. His bank account was in Montreal, he had always voted in Montreal and his driver's licence had his Montreal address on it. He said that he was aware of the effect that his economic region could have on his benefit claim. He knew that he could receive more weeks of benefits if he filed his claim using an address in the Magdalen Islands. The commission imposed an overpayment, penalty and a notice of violation. The claimant¿s appeal is dismissed.
Decision 64683
Full Text of Decision 64683
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The test of where one is "ordinarily resident" involves a consideration of both subjective and objective facts. This term refers to the residence that is most important to the appellant because of habit, regularity and consistency in choosing that residence. The Umpire confirmed the decision of the Board of Referees finding that the appellant's actions demonstrated that his most important residence was still in Sainte Ourse.
Decision 40662
Full Text of Decision 40662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The term "usual" clearly excludes any stay in a place where a person is not intending to live permanently. In the present case, this statement applies to Levis, where the claimant was simply living termporarily while studying.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
students |
|
Decision 36726
Full Text of Decision 36726
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The intent of an individual, in matters of home or residence, is always a very important factor. In this case, the claimant was indeed the owner of a residence in Hull and not in Maniwaki as he had claimed, and he never intended to change his home address.
Decision 21968
Full Text of Decision 21968
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The Board ignored the requirement of the Regulations to apply the test to the claimant's circumstances in the week preceding the week for which he applied for benefits. I must therefore set aside the decision of the Board because of this error of law.
Strict attention must be paid to the time when one becomes entitled to apply for UI. Otherwise it would be open to claimants newly in receipt of UI and living in an area of relatively low unemployment, to move deliberately to some area of high unemploymentwith greater entitlement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 20205
Full Text of Decision 20205
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The ordinary place of residence is not necessarily the place where the person dwells permanently or exclusively, but where the person during the material time, has his usual or settled abode.
Decision 66115
Full Text of Decision 66115
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Summary:
The claimant had 698 hours of insurable employment but needed 700 as she resided in Girouxville, in the ecomic region of Southern Alberta. There was no evidence in the record on which the Board of Referees could have reasonable found or presumed that Girouxville is in the Northern Alberta economic region.
Decision 23397
Full Text of Decision 23397
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Summary:
Claimant was employed in Battleford which is part of the region of Northern Saskatchewan. There is no lack of clarity as to where he resides and has resided for the last 15 years: namely 7 miles inside the region of Southern Saskatchewan. Ss. 52(2) clearly not intended to deal with this situation.
Decision 11897
Full Text of Decision 11897
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Summary:
The Board found that claimant did not reside so close to the boundary as to cause confusion as to which district he lived in. Accordingly, he did not have the required number of weeks to qualify.
Decision 09190
Full Text of Decision 09190
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Summary:
It is not clear whether the Board considered the possible application of reg. 52(2). If the residence is close enough as to cause confusion as to which district it is in, then the Board may allow the appeal. If no such confusion exists, the Commission'sdecision must be upheld.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Decision A-0770.80
Full Text of Decision A-0770.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Summary:
Claimant gave Boiestown as her address, benefit period established with 10 insured weeks. She actually resided in Taxis River where 16 weeks were required. The Umpire erred in law. No dispute that claimant lives in Taxis River, so reg._52(2) dealing with boundary residents was not applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 67447
Full Text of Decision 67447
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
charter |
|
Summary:
Since the unemployment rate in the Chicoutimi/Jonquière region where the claimant lived was 11%, the claimant would be entitled to 21 weeks of Employment Insurance benefits. The claimant appealed on the grounds that fellow workers had been entitled to between 10 and 15 weeks more because they live in the Lac St-Jean region. The claimant has failed to show that section 12(2) of the Act violated her equality rights guaranteed under section 15(1) of the Charter.
Decision 26901A
Full Text of Decision 26901A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant invokes s.15 of the Charter arguing that he is discriminated against as a result of where he resides, based on the Regulation which uses the area of residence rather than the area where he worked. Argument dismissed.
Decision 69769
Full Text of Decision 69769
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
The claimant was ordinary resident in Alberta when she made her initial claim. She could not benefit from longer duration when she moved back to Nova Scotia a month later.
Decision 66347
Full Text of Decision 66347
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Following a spousal separation, the claimant left the Magdelen Islands for Lévis where he accepted employment with his son. At the time of a lay-off in September 2004 and his claim for benefit, he resided at Lévis. He remained there until the month of Feburary 2005 when he returned to Fatima, Magdelen Islands, as it had been his intention for several months to be reunited with his spouse. The difference in the maximum number of weeks of benefits between the two locations was 27 weeks.
Decision 54192
Full Text of Decision 54192
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Claimant left NFLD to go to Alberta with her husband who was looking for work. She had only been in Alberta for a few days when she made her claim for benefits. Held by Umpire that there was no intention of staying at that time, only to seek employment. If her husband had not found work approximately a month later, they could have decided to return to NFLD. At the stage when she filed, she had not established a residence in Alberta. Ordinarily resident is a term which would apply to somebody who has established a residence.
Decision 30261
Full Text of Decision 30261
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
The Act and Regulations require that the ordinary place of residence be determined in light of par. 9(1)(a) and (b), at the later of the dates to be considered, i.e. the week in which the interruption of earnings occurs or the week in which the claim forbenefit is made.
Decision 29737
Full Text of Decision 29737
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Claimant lived in Montreal from 1964-89. Worked in Ottawa until 5-91. Filed for benefits on 10-7-91. Returned to Mtl in 9-91. Held that return to Mtl not relevant. Economic region is the one in which claimant was ordinarily resident during the week in which the benefit period commences.
Decision 21968
Full Text of Decision 21968
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
At the time he applied for benefits, claimant had been in Ontario for 16 months and he still hoped to find other employment in Ontario. It was only subsequently, when unable to find work, that he returned to Newfoundland (6 weeks later). Test to be applied to week of claim.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 21906
Full Text of Decision 21906
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Requesting a transfer of his claim to London where he hoped to find work is not sufficient to justify a conclusion that he, after that date, was ordinarily resident in London. Many reasons may prompt a person to transfer a claim short of changing one's place of ordinary residence.
Decision 17465
Full Text of Decision 17465
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Claimant left Edmonton in 10-87 to travel east in search of work and kept moving from place to place. No intention to settle permanently elsewhere. He filed a claim in Ottawa in 4-88 as a resident of Alberta where he subsequently returned. Ordinarily resident in Edmonton.
Decision 14933
Full Text of Decision 14933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Employed 10 weeks at Moisie, she left to accompany her husband who was transfered to St-Jean. Last day of work at Moisie was 11-7; application made at St-Jean on 14-7. Place of residence: St-Jean.
Decision 14548
Full Text of Decision 14548
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
Summary:
Applied for benefits in Sarnia on 23-1-87 and did not qualify. Applied in Sudbury on 4-3-87 but no formal change of address had taken place. Factual case.
Decision 40662
Full Text of Decision 40662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
students |
|
Summary:
The term "usual" clearly excludes any stay in a place where a person is not intending to live permanently. In the present case, this statement applies to Levis, where the claimant was simply living termporarily while studying.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Decision 25875
Full Text of Decision 25875
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
students |
|
Summary:
Held by the Board that a large number of young people from the Cape Breton area establish a residence in Halifax to attend University and find work, that their home address is the place of residence before they move to attend University. The Board erred in finding that her residence was Sydney.
Decision 69529
Full Text of Decision 69529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Claimant was ordinarily resident in Norton NB because that was where he normally resided except for when he was away working with his father-in-law in another part of the province. The claimant had rented the house, had used that address for a number of personal things, such as income tax, driver's license, that's where his wife lived and that is where his phone was listed. There is no doubt that he lived in Salmon Creek for a considerable time working during the year, but at the end of the season, he returned home to Norton.
Decision 25476
Full Text of Decision 25476
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Due to labour dispute in Kapuskasing, claimant went to London. He occupied his parents' vacant home (not rented but listed for sale). He then filed for UI. Returned to Kapuskasing some time later. Driver's licence and voters' list show Kapuskasing. Held that his residence was in London when filing.
Decision 23442
Full Text of Decision 23442
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Employed in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, but resides on the Alberta side of Lloydminster. The Board considered the claimant earned his right through employment in Saskatchewan and he continued to look for employment in Saskatchewan. The Board was clearly in error.
Decision 22774
Full Text of Decision 22774
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Claimant himself considered that he has been ordinarily resident at New Westminster. That is where he had his usual or settled abode, the base from which he went off to work in coast logging operations and to which he returned when his employment ceased from time to time.
The Act and the Regulations provide for the regional rate of unemployment for the region in which he was ordinarily resident to be applicable, not the rate for the region in which he was employed.
Decision 21968
Full Text of Decision 21968
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
The mere fact that one has some general intention to return one day to his native province does not prevent him from being ordinarily resident in a place where he has been making his living and appears to wish to continue making his living for the foreseeable future.
Claimant argued that people from Newfoundland who go to the mainland for employment should always be considered as resident in Newfoundland because that is where they intend to return. Unfortunately the matter is not as simple as that.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 14162
Full Text of Decision 14162
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Worked in Richmond 24-6-86 to 30-8-86. Subsequent to layoff she went to live in Kamloops. Ordinarily resident in Richmond at time of layoff and she has 10 instead of 16 weeks. 10 would be sufficient in Kamloops.
Decision 12815
Full Text of Decision 12815
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Worked in Calgary. Laid off 29-11. Made a claim. 13 weeks instead of 17 as required. Moved to N.S. 16-12 and made another claim. Ordinary place of residence for the purpose of s.20 is Calgary, not N.S.
Decision 09190
Full Text of Decision 09190
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Clearly, the Board erred in law in finding that the location of claimant's employment determines the regional rate of unemployment applicable. The specific language of reg. 52 requires that the determining factor is the region in which he is ordinarily resident.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Decision 09074
Full Text of Decision 09074
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
Summary:
Worked in Saskatchewan. Upon layoff, the company flew her back to N.B. While on UI, she drove to Saskatchewan to look for work for 5 months. Single and no family to go back to when a job ran out. Something other than residence is meant by ordinary residence. Her home is N.B.
