Decision 76519
Full Text of Decision 76519
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
|
Summary:
The claimant was involved in an accident and unable to work between November 5, 2008 and October 15, 2009. In October 22, 2009 the claimant filed for special benefits and requested to back date the application to November 5, 2008. The commission ruled she did not have good cause to delay as required by law. The delay was caused by her filing of a claim with a private insurer. The Commission reviewed the request and allowed her qualifying period extended by an additional 50 weeks. This allowed her to establish 643 insurable hours but she needed 788 insurable hours. The claimant has accumulated a minor violation in the 260 weeks preceding the filing of her claim, thus increasing the number of required insured hours to qualify. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 76507
Full Text of Decision 76507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period on December 16, 2007. The claimant did not receive benefits until August 22, 2009 by reason of the allocation of a severance pay. Her benefit period was extended to the maximum period provided under section 10 (14) of the Employment Insurance Act. In the end, at the time where the claimant started receiving benefits 89 weeks of her benefit period had elapsed and she was eligible to receive benefits only for the balance of the 104 weeks. Unfortunately, the Umpire, nor the BOR and nor the Commission has the authority to amend the law. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision 76063
Full Text of Decision 76063
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
The claimant filed a claim for benefits effective February 21, 2010. The Commission determined that the claimant had only accumulated 17 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period which ran from February 22, 2009 to February 20, 2010. The claimant had an E.I benefit period established as of September 6, 2008 and received 15 weeks of sickness benefits. The claimant stated that health reasons prevented him from working from September 6, 2008 to February 4, 2010. On May 11, 2010, the BOR allowed the claimant’s appeal by allowing the qualifying period to be extended to February 20, 2008. The Commission argued that according to Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act stipulate that a qualifying period cannot be extended beyond a preceding benefit period. The appeal by the Commission’s decision is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 68048
Full Text of Decision 68048
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
To be eligible for an extension of the benefit period under paragraph 10(10)(b) of the EI Act, the earnings must have been paid because of the complete severance of the relationship with the employer. In this case there has been no complete severance as the claimant was re-instated by his employer some two years later. The claimant sought full benefits by way of extension between the end of the allocation of earnings and the date of re-instatement.
Decision 31280
Full Text of Decision 31280
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Following her precautionary cessation of work (maternity), the beneficiary requested that her benefit period be extended. The request was denied. The compensation received by the beneficiary for precautionary cessation of work would not have prevented benefits from being paid (s. 9(7)(d) of the Act).
Decision S-1059.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Parliament's desire to benefit both inmates and injured workers is in the context of an Act that, for legislative policy reasons, grants broader or narrower benefits to different classes of claimants.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
necessary conditions |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Decision 11239
Full Text of Decision 11239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
As per ss.20(7), a claimant's benefit period may only be extended in certain particular circumstances, namely incarceration in gaol or receipt of workmen's compensation. Claimant did not fit into either of these. Neither the CEIC, Board nor I can changethe Act.
Decision 11028
Full Text of Decision 11028
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
It is period that is extended. This does not necessarily entitle claimant to benefit for entire extended portion; other requirements to be met in addition to being unemployed. I therefore do not see why 9(7) should be narrowly construed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Decision 10717
Full Text of Decision 10717
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Benefit payments interrupted due to pregnancy and confinement. 37 weeks paid in total during benefit period. Unfair treatment alleged under Bill of Rights and Human Rights as compared to prisoners whose benefit periods may be extended under 20(7).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A-0525.95
Full Text of Decision A-0525.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Claimant was referred to a course. On 6-03-92, the claimant left the course for five weeks because of sickness. Claimant was ineligible to receive sick benefits, and the authorization to take the course was withdrawn retroactively to 6-03-92. Nevertheless, the claimant returned to the course and completed it successfully. The FCA referred the matter back to the Umpire for determination as to whether the claimant was still referred despite his absence. **NOTE: The FCA identified several ambiguities, and noted that there was a lack of consensus regarding the nature of the Commission’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
absences from course |
sickness |
|
Decision 32891
Full Text of Decision 32891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Payment for a course and referral are two separate and distinct actions by the Commission. Commission paid for the course but evidence establishes that it did not refer the claimant to the course as required by ss.26(1) of the Act. Claimant not entitledto an extension under ss.26(2) of the Act.
Decision 29992
Full Text of Decision 29992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Claimant referred to a course on 4-11-90. On 13-11-92 she quits the course on account of her expected date of confinement on 10-12-92. Maximum extension of three weeks granted, pursuant to sections 26(2) of the Act and 51(2) of the Regulations.
Decision 15413
Full Text of Decision 15413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
I agree with CUB 9198 about ss. 20(7) [that extensions not to be allowed for University students regardless of their availability for work].
Decision 27980
Full Text of Decision 27980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
criminal acts |
Summary:
Held that the criminal injury benefits paid through the Workmen's Compensation Board of B.C. do not constitute workers' compensation payments for the purpose of para. 9(7)(c), nor do they come under (d) for having ceased to work because continuing would have entailed danger to claimant.
Decision 14568
Full Text of Decision 14568
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
employed |
Summary:
Length of a benefit period is 50 weeks. A return to the work force for 6 weeks in the middle of a benefit period does not qualify a claimant for an extension.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A0434.10
Full Text of Decision A0434.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant received work-sharing benefits that were converted to regular benefits after losing his job. At the end of his benefit period, the claimant was informed that he was ineligible for extended-benefits under the newly implemented Long-Tenured Worker (LTW) program because his claim had been established outside the eligibility period. The Commission could not advise the claimant in February 2009 about his eligibility for LTW status because the LTW program did not exist at the time. Bill C-50 was enacted on November 5, 2009 and made retroactive to January 4, 2009. There was no evidence on record showing that the Commission should have known, as early as February, 2009, that Bill C-50 would be enacted or that it would provide more benefits for claimant establishing a benefit period starting on January 4, 2009. The Commission has no power to amend the Act.
Decision 76023
Full Text of Decision 76023
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant wanted to cancel his benefit claim established in September 2008 so as to establish a new one on January 4, 2009 in order to benefit from the Career Transition Program, which would have allowed him to obtain additional weeks of benefit. The claimant file an initial claim for benefits, received a vacation and severance pay, which were spread out until December 5, 2008. According to the BOR, a claimant who wants to terminate a benefits period for just cause must ask the Commission in order to submit a new claim for benefits. After checking, the Commission said that the claimant would qualify for the program if his claim were dated January 4, 2009. However, there was no justification for the delay from September 2008 to January 2009 to end his benefit period except so that he could take advantage of a new Bill coming into effect on October 25, 2009. Although the Board of Referees agrees with the claimant concerning the spirit of this assistance measure, a change in the Act is not just cause for a change in his file. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76066
Full Text of Decision 76066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant last worked was December 12, 2008 and a claim was established on December 14, 2008. He was told by a representative of EI who came to the factory prior to closing, to file his EI claims immediately. The Bill C-50, which came into force on the 25th of October, 2009, it provided in addition to the five weeks contained in Bill C-10, an extension of regular benefits for any claimants whose benefit period was established on/after January 4, 2009. To be eligible a claimant was required to show that he had previously paid at least 30% of the maximum EI contributions for various periods of time ranging from 7 to 12 years. The Commission came to the conclusion that because the claimant’s benefit period had been established in December of 2008, even dough his severance finished on January 8, 2009, he did not meet the criteria as a long-tenured worker. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75014
Full Text of Decision 75014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long tenured worker |
Summary:
The claimant was employed until the 21st of December, 2008 at which point a claim for benefits was established. He then returned to work for the same company from January 19 until April 8, 2009. The claimant inquired about the long-tenured worker program but was denied. In order to qualify for LTW one must have a benefit period between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010. Although the Commission agreed that the claimant meets the criteria of contributing at least 30% of the maximum annual employee’s premium and being paid less than 36 weeks of regular benefits in the past five years, his claim for benefits started before January 25, 2009. The Commission could not cancel the benefits as benefits were payable to the claimant from the preceding January and he received and accepted these benefits. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed
Decision A0230.11
Full Text of Decision A0230.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Summary:
The claimant made an initial claim and a benefit period was established effective January 11, 2009. The claimant requested to have his claim antedated to commence on December 21, 2008. The Commission granted the antedate. On October 25, 2009, new provisions to assist Long Tenured Workers (LTWs) were introduced. The LTW provisions only applied to benefit periods established on or after January 4, 2009. The claimant appealed his ineligibility to the LTW program arguing that the start of his benefit period had been changed by the Commission. The BOR granted the claimant’s appeal. The Commission appealed this decision to the Umpire, who dismissed the appeal. The FCA dismissed the application for judicial review. The FCA held that the record did not disclose any basis for the Commission’s decision of June 2009 to antedate the commencement of the benefit period to December 21, 2008.
Decision A0455.10
Full Text of Decision A0455.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Summary:
The claimant established a benefit period effective June 8, 2008. He had received a severance pay allocated until May 2, 2009. He then received regular benefits from May 5, 2009, to December 27, 2009. The claimant applied for extended benefits under the long-tenured worker provisions of the EIA. The Commission denied his application on the basis that, to be eligible for long-term worker status, a claimant's benefit period must have been established between January 4, 2009, and September 11, 2010. The FCA concluded that the claimant applied for benefits on June 13, 2008 and his «benefit period» was established on the previous Sunday, which was June 8, 2008. That date falls outside the periods set in the EIA for which extended benefits are available.
Decision 75805
Full Text of Decision 75805
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
long-tenured workers |
Summary:
The claimant's last day of employment was December 17, 2008. He applied for benefits on December 22, 2008. A benefit period was then established December 21, 2008 with the two week waiting period for the weeks of December 21st and 28th. He then received benefits. The claimant's employer went into bankruptcy in December 2008. In May 2009, the claimant received from the Trustee in bankruptcy an amount under the Wage Eatners Protection Program. On july 15, 2009, he was advised by the Commission taht the amount received would be deducted from his benefits from December 14, 2008 to January 3, 2009. His two week waiting period was then attributed to the weeks starting January 4th and 11th, 2009. The claimant submits that since his two week waiting period started on January 4 and not to have received benefits before that date, his benefit period started at the earliest on January 4, 2009 and should qualify for Long Tenure Worker. The Commission on the other hand submits that in this case the benefit period was established before January 4, 2009 and that according to section 10(2) of the Employment insurance Act as amended by Bill C-50, the claimant is not eligible for the extended benefits provided under the Bill. 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 |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A-0311.95
Full Text of Decision A-0311.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
According to the Board, and in contrast to the French version, the English wording "workers' compensation for an injury" includes compensation paid by Assurance-automobile du Québec for a road accident. Decided that the English version had been improperly understood. Decision upheld by FCA.
Decision 27459
Full Text of Decision 27459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0311.95
Decision 28207
Full Text of Decision 28207
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Involved in an accident. Monies received from Wage Loss Indemnity in B.C. CUB 20790 quoted. Claimant feels there ought to be no distinction when the amounts are paid under the Workmen's Compensation scheme of a province or paid by a public insurance company as compensation for injuries sustained.
Decision 20790
Full Text of Decision 20790
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was in receipt of monies from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Ss.9(7) is quite specific and must be strictly interpreted. The payment here does not qualify for extending a benefit period.
Decision 15009
Full Text of Decision 15009
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
motor vehicle accident |
Summary:
Compensation paid to the insured person, who was the victim of a highway accident, by the Régie de l'assurance-automobile du Québec cannot take the place of maximum compensation provided in the case of employment injuries.
Decision 76323
Full Text of Decision 76323
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant was denied benefits after the expiration of his benefit period. The claimant’s last day of work was February 15, 2008. He filed an application for benefits on March 27, 2008. At that time the claimant left for Iran and remained in Iran for nine months. He was not eligible to benefits during that period by reason of his absence from Canada. The claimant submitted a second application in December 2008. The Commission was required to consider the 52 week period prior to the date of the application in order to determine the insurable hours of the claimant. The claimant did not work between February 15, 2008 and December 2008 and has no insurable hours. The Act provides that in certain cases the benefit period may be extended to a maximum of 104 weeks. Unfortunately the claimant’s situation is not one where an extension may be granted. Subsection 10(2) of the Act determines the length of a benefit period. 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 |
eligibility to benefits |
|
|
Decision 26220
Full Text of Decision 26220
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant's absence from Canada and the resulting disentitlement does not qualify him for an extension to the benefit period. His benefit period covers 52 consecutive weeks and these benefits cannot be deferred to a later period after the benefit period terminates.
Decision 21072
Full Text of Decision 21072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
He did not undergo any treatment while outside the country; nor was he subjected to any care not available in Canada. Under s.32 there can be no payments. There also can be no extension to a benefit period; it runs without interruption unless an exemption applies.
Decision 17535
Full Text of Decision 17535
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Claimant applied for an extension on the ground that she left Canada to join her daughter in the U.S. from 10-12 to 6-4 and that she was not given adequate information when she enquired before leaving.
Decision A-0510.02
Full Text of Decision A-0510.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
The Commission denied the request for an extension of the benefit period since the claimant was entitled to benefits during her preventive withdrawal period. The Court concluded that the claimant had not proven that she was not entitled to benefits as stipulated in paragraph 10(10) of the EIA.
Decision 54777
Full Text of Decision 54777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0510.02
Decision 44831
Full Text of Decision 44831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Claimant was receiving $394.00 from the CSST while his weekly benefit rate was $402.00. He was therefore entitled to $8.00 a week. He had not claimed benefits while receiving the CSST compensation and therefore requested an extension of his benefit period. Request denied. Decision upheld by the Umpire under paragraph 10(10)(c) of the EI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 39569
Full Text of Decision 39569
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Summary:
Commission refused to extend the benefit period because the claimant could have demanded the difference between the benefit rate ($245/wk) and the preventative withdrawal settlement rate ($222/wk). The Board of Referees set aside this decision. Umpire found that subsection 9(7) does not apply to this case. The claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, since the amount of his settlement was less than his unemployment insurance benefits. The Board thus erred in its interpretation of this provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 27033
Full Text of Decision 27033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
Weekly benefits from Health Services Society, the adjudicator for the IWA-Forest Industry Health and Welfare Plan. I am bound by CUB 14652. The Board erred in holding that these benefits were completely analogous to Workers' Compensation Payments under the B.C. Act which is wholly employer funded.
Decision 25708
Full Text of Decision 25708
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
Held that the allowances paid in accordance with the Regulations on Complementary Benefits Plans in the Construction Industry, under the Labour Relations Act in the Construction Industry, do not provide entitlement to the extension contemplated in ss. 9(7).
Decision 21572
Full Text of Decision 21572
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
Received salary insurance compensation until 30-4-89. Pursuant to 9(7), the benefits period may be extended if the beneficiary is receiving the compensation provided for in the case of an industrial accident or occupational injury. The compensation received is not the equivalent.
Decision 14652
Full Text of Decision 14652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
wage-loss |
Summary:
He was neither incarcerated nor in receipt of workers' compensation. Claimant does not fit those criteria for extension because he was in receipt of payments through his former's disability insurance plan.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 70544
Full Text of Decision 70544
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
The claimant maintained that his benefit period should have been extended under section 10(10)(c) of the Act. The Commission determined that the claimant received $324 a week from the WHSCC, and because he was entitled to receive $345 a week in Employment Insurance benefits, he could not be considered ineligible for Employment Insurance benefits during the period when he was receiving workers' compensation from the WHSCC. The Commission determined that the claimant was entitled to receive $21.00 in benefits for each week during the period. The evidence shows that during no weeks of his benefit period could he not receive Employment Insurance benefits because he was collecting workers' compensation.
Decision S-1071.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
An insured who receives worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was not entitled under s. 36.
Decision S-1059.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
It is difficult to understand why two insured persons disentitled under s. 36 because incapable of work should be treated differently because one received worker's compensation. This anomaly should not be remedied by judicial intervention.
An insured who has received worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was disentitled under s. 36.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
necessary conditions |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision A-0649.86
Full Text of Decision A-0649.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
Not only does 9(7)(c) not treat equally situated persons unequally, it actually affords disabled persons who have received workers' compensation payments the same benefits under the Act that other disabled are entitled to, all else being equal. It does not offend the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 12837
Full Text of Decision 12837
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0649.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 11028
Full Text of Decision 11028
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
According to CEIC, receiving compensation does not count if it must be repaid; suggested that case be adjourned while awaiting final decision of CSST. Request denied. Entitlement may be reviewed under 43(1) at proper time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
applicability |
Decision A-1071.84
Full Text of Decision A-1071.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Summary:
An insured who receives worker's compensation in the supplementary phase of the benefit period is entitled to an extension even if he was not entitled under s. 36.
