Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision 64456 Full Text of Decision 64456

A claimant who loses an employment because of his misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless, after losing that employment, he is employed in insurable employment for the number of hours required to qualify to receive benefits.

Decision A-0302.97 Full Text of Decision A-0302.97

Claimant lost his f/t job on 14-07-93 and started to receive benefits. He applied to take a course, which did not begin until 10-11-93. In mid-August 93, he took a p/t job and left it without just cause on 4-09-93. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.

Decision A-0299.97 Full Text of Decision A-0299.97

Claimant employed f/t by the University of Ottawa and holding a p/t job elsewhere at the same time. On 31-12-94, claimant lost his job, applied for EI and began to receive benefits. On 25-02-95, he left his p/t job without just cause. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.

Decision A-0787.96 Full Text of Decision A-0787.96

Lost f/t job in 09-92 and benefits paid. In 02-93, claimant took a p/t job but left it on 8-08-93 to move and attend university. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.

Decision A-0799.95 Full Text of Decision A-0799.95

Held by FCA that ss. 59.1(1) of the Reg., when interpreted in conjunction with ss. 30.1(2) of the Act, means that the loss of any employment without just cause by a claimant, since the beginning of the qualifying period, will trigger the application of s. 28 disqualification regardless of whether it was a p/t job held concurrently with another or whether it occurred after the establishment of a benefit period based on a lay off from some other regular employment.

Decision A-0576.95 Full Text of Decision A-0576.95

Lost work on 23-8-93 due to misconduct. Obtained work elsewhere 30-8-93 and after 3 months was laid off. Upon filing claim, was disqualified by reason of previous employment. Held by Umpire that MCLAUGHLIN (A-244-94) applies. The FCA disagreed with the applicability of that decision since it was prior to the enactment of R. 59.1. When read with S.28 of the UI Act, it allows the Commission to impose a disqualification where a claimant loses a job for misconduct but subsequently becomes re-employed and claims benefits as a result of a lay off from the 2nd job. An accumulation of additional insurable weeks from the disqualifying event is necessary to requalify.

Decision A-0244.94 Full Text of Decision A-0244.94

A claim for benefit, against which a disqualification applies under s. 28, does not require a claimant to file biweekly reporting cards. See KACHMAN. The filing of such report cards is only a requirement of eligibility to receive benefits once a claim has been made. This is clear from s. 40. Claimant suspended from work for 3 weeks due to misconduct. Filed a renewal claim and was disqualified. Did not file any reporting card. Was laid off for lack of work 7 weeks after. Filed a second renewal claim. Held that the prior disqualification does not apply to the second renewal claim.

Decision 24276 Full Text of Decision 24276

Refer to: A-0244.94