Decision 76142
Full Text of Decision 76142
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant received maternity and parental benefits from June 2008 to June 24, 2009. She returned to work on June 24 and her last day of work was August 6, 2009. She filed a claim for unemployment benefits on August 20, 2009. Her qualifying period was from August 10, 2008 to August 8, 2009. The total of her insurable hours in her qualifying period was 237 hours while she required a total of 560 hours to qualify. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 72386
Full Text of Decision 72386
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant had not accumulated the number of hours of insurable employment required to have a benefit period established. He had only accumulated 816 hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period and, because he had been issued a notice of violation, the minimum number of hours of insurable employment required to benefits is 875 hours. Because the claimant had already had a benefit period established effective June 2006, and the claimant's new qualifying period could not begin before the date on which the claimant had a previous benefit period established.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Decision A0422.12
Full Text of Decision A0422.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
definition |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a claim for regular benefits. Because the claimant had a previous claim, the Commission determined that his qualifying period was from March 27, 2011 to March 3, 2012 pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(b) of the EI Act. The claimant accumulated only 542 of insurable hours during his qualifying period, instead of the required 630 hours. The FCA dismissed the application and she focusing on subsection 8(1) of the EI Act and the start date for the claimant’s qualifying period. The FCA noted that, in its submission to the BOR, the Commission made no reference to paragraph 8(1)(b) of the EI Act and made no reference to any prior claim to benefits. The FCA held that the Commission was required to produce some evidence, not merely assert, that the claimant had previously made a claim for benefits so as to shorten his qualifying period.
Decision 76144
Full Text of Decision 76144
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
|
Summary:
La prestataire a cessé de travailler le 28 février 2007 Une période de prestations a été établie à son profit à compter du 12 août 2007. Sa période normale de prestations de 52 semaines a été prolongée de 52 semaines supplémentaires en raison de la répartition de son indemnité de départ. Sa période de prestations a donc été prolongée jusqu'au début de la semaine du 2 août 2009.La période de répartition de l'indemnité de départ a pris fin la semaine du 2 mars 2009. La prestataire a renouvelé sa demande et a reçu des prestations jusqu'à la semaine du 2 août 2009. Elle soutient qu'elle aurait dû recevoir des prestations plus longtemps. Le paragraphe 10(2) de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi est ainsi libellé : « (2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (10) à (15) et de l'article 24, la durée d'une période de prestations est de 52 semaines. » L’appel de la prestataire est rejeté par le J.A.
Decision 75539
Full Text of Decision 75539
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant had not accumulated enough hours of insurable employment to be entitled to benefits. The claimant unfortunately had been seriously ill and without work for some 24 months. He needed to have accumulated 910 insurable hours in order to be entitled to benefits. His return to work was unsuccessful; his employer did not want to keep him on. The claimant wants his qualifying period to be extended. The Commission granted the maximum extension permitted by the Act in respect of the qualifying period, for a total of 104 weeks prior to the benefit. The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
new entrant or re-entrant |
|
|
Decision 75822
Full Text of Decision 75822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
QPIP |
Summary:
The claimant took parental leave and received 28 weeks of benefits under the QPIP from May 5 to November 15, 2008. On October 22, 2008, the employer issued a ROE which indicated that he was terminated. The claimant accumulated 919 insurable hours during his qualifying period. The claimant lived in the Montreal area where the unemployment rate was 7.5% and was entitled to receive 26 weeks of EI benefits. The claimant argued that had he not taken parental leave, he would have been entitled to 45 or 52 weeks, like everyone else. According to a regulation made in this context, the EI qualifying period cannot be extended for any week in which a person has received provincial benefits such as QPIP benefits. This principle of equivalence extends to benefits paid under a provincial plan a recognition that is similar to maternity or parental benefits paid under the EI program, applied to any future claim for EI benefits. According to a regulation made in this context, the EI qualifying period cannot be extended dor any week in which a person has received provincial benefits for birth or adoption such as QPIP benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the BOR and the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision A-0664.99
Full Text of Decision A-0664.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Last day worked: 21-08-98. Benefit period would have been established effective 23-08-98 if the claimant had accumulated the necessary number of insurable hours. Claimant had only 544 hours, whereas 560 hours were needed. Claimant asked to have his benefit period start one week earlier (week of interruption of earnings), to have his qualifying period extended by a week, and to allow him to benefit from the insurable hours accumulated during his last week of work. Request denied by the Commission, but allowed by the Umpire who was of the opinion that an extension would favour the claimant and the last part should not be cut off.The Court allowed the Commission's request for a judicial review after the claimant gave his consent.
Decision 45755
Full Text of Decision 45755
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0664.99
Decision 28281
Full Text of Decision 28281
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Hospitalized 6 months during his stay in France. According to the CEIC, the claimant did not demonstrate that had it not been for his incapability he would otherwise have been available for work, being outside of Canada. Based on CUB 16819 the Board rightfully refused the extension requested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Decision 24218
Full Text of Decision 24218
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
While on a 3-month vacation in Portugal, claimant was diagnosed as having cancer. Surgery and chemo-therapy delayed her return to Canada for 6 months. Para. 7(2)(a) is inapplicable, says the Commission, because she was on vacation when she became incapable of work. I do not read this in 7(2)(a).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Decision 19613
Full Text of Decision 19613
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0496.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision A-0496.91
Full Text of Decision A-0496.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Application for benefits having been made 19-5-87, his qualifying period which could be extended under para. 7(3) was the 52-week period preceding 17-5-87.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 18661
Full Text of Decision 18661
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Left for Ecuador in 3-88. Due to return 7-88 but fell sick. Return ticket not submitted but medical evidence on file. The Board did not err in finding that she failed to establish that the sole reason she was not employed in insurable employment in Canada was illness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Decision 17606
Full Text of Decision 17606
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
There must be evidence that claimant would have been working or looking for work if he had not taken ill or suffered an injury. He was sick and in receipt of an indemnity from 3-86 to 4-87. He then retired and was therefore not available for work duringhis qualifying period.
When a claimant would have not been in insurable employment in any event, whether or not a ground for extension had arisen, no extension may be granted (CUB 9611).
Decision 16819
Full Text of Decision 16819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Left employment in Canada 31-7-86 to move to Australia where she worked until hospitalized in 11-86. Returned to Canada in 9-87. Extension possible under ss.7(2) if one not employed in insurable employment due to illness. The crucial expression here is insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Decision 13184
Full Text of Decision 13184
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Why was her employment not insurable? Had to stop attending courses because she was not capable of attending, as a result of pregnancy. Extension granted. [This point of law seems to have gone unnoticed]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Decision 12113
Full Text of Decision 12113
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
Period of incapacity not falling within claimant's qualifying period and accordingly no extension can be granted. [p. 3]
Decision 11636
Full Text of Decision 11636
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Summary:
These exceptions contained in ss.18(2) include illness, confinement in jail, attending a course or being in receipt of total temporary workers' compensation payments. The claimant's case does not fit under any of those categories.
Decision 28463
Full Text of Decision 28463
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
It seems clear to me that the weeks during which the claimant attended a training course while receiving benefits should not be counted in the compilation and the establishing of the qualifying period.
Decision 26810
Full Text of Decision 26810
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
Claimant felt his qualifying period should have been extended while on a training course to which he had been directed by the Commission. Ss. 7(5) provides that weeks during period in which claimant was in receipt of benefits cannot be counted for the extension.
Decision 24897
Full Text of Decision 24897
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
Para. 7(2)(c) and ss. 7(5) quoted. In other words, one cannot count weeks while on course and in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits towards an extension.
Decision 24195
Full Text of Decision 24195
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
While by itself para. 7(2)(a) might have assisted the claimant, it must be read with ss. 7(5). Clearly here, the claimant received UI benefits during her 15-week maternity leave. These weeks cannot be counted as qualifying weeks.
Decision 14237
Full Text of Decision 14237
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
Pursuant to s.18, since she was in attendance at a course to which referred and did receive benefits, the benefit period cannot be extended beyond the termination of the training period [sic].
Decision 12088
Full Text of Decision 12088
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
Weeks for which benefits were paid cannot be used for extension purposes; attended a course while in receipt of benefit during qualifying period: a third claim was filed on 21-12-84; an extension is not permitted under s. 18(4).
Decision 11964
Full Text of Decision 11964
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
benefits paid |
Summary:
As board said, subs. 7(5) is clear on this point. Weeks for which insured in receipt of benefits cannot be counted.
Decision 09774
Full Text of Decision 09774
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
courses |
Summary:
Although the course claimant followed was approved by the Department of Education of the Yukon, the Minister and others who vigorously encourage students to attend high school, these do not constitute referral by the Commission. It must be a CEIC officer which makes the referral.
As a high school student, he was following a course of instruction. But it is clear by the use of "other" in ss.18(2) that the qualification requiring referral is intended to cover both "program" and "courses of instruction". Argument that referral was not necessary is dismissed.
Decision 30939
Full Text of Decision 30939
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
employed |
Summary:
Claimant had two jobs; left the first on 1-07-92 (preventive withdrawal) and the second on 22-01-93 (maternity). Request that her qualifying period be extended to 9-07-92; refused. Essential condition of 7(2)d) of the Act not met: claimant was employed in insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision 24532
Full Text of Decision 24532
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
employed |
Summary:
Held that the Board erred in law in deciding that the claimant was entitled to an extension with respect to a sick leave period during which she was deemed to have been in insurable employment.
Decision 11978
Full Text of Decision 11978
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
employed |
Summary:
He finds it difficult to understand that if he was ill, injured, quarantined, pregnant, in jail or on workmen's compensation, his claim could be deferred, but not as an elected official [mayor] defeated at the polls. S.17 and 18 applied correctly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 69704
Full Text of Decision 69704
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
The claimant was short 60 hours to qualify for maternity benefits because she had reduced her work schedule to the equivalent of 2 weeks per month due to pregnancy related illness. The burden of proof was on the claimant to prove that throughout some weeks in her qualifying period she was incapable of work because of illness or pregnancy. Certainly one is not pregnant only in alternate weeks and it stretches the imagination to accept that illness associated with one's pregnancy alternates from work week to work week.
Decision A-0114.98
Full Text of Decision A-0114.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Claimant had 15 weeks of insurable employment to qualify while 26 weeks were needed. Requested an extension of his qualifying period alleging that he was on "economic quarantine" when being unable to obtain or retain employment because of the vindictive actions of his former employer and that should be associated to the term "quarantine" found in the legislation. Contention rejected by Umpire who concluded that the word "quarantine" found in the Act is being used as an cognate to illness or injury. The FCA summarily dismissed the claimant's request for review.
Decision 40093
Full Text of Decision 40093
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0114.98.
Decision 27930
Full Text of Decision 27930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
The physician advised that claimant was capable of performing related work in sales or service. The Board accepted evidence that automobile insurance benefits were paid for an additional 8 weeks. The payment of automobile insurance benefits does not constitute proof of disability.
Decision 22473
Full Text of Decision 22473
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Unable to hold the job he had before his accident, as he could not perform all the tasks associated with that job. Consequently, the benefits received from the CSST were basically paid not because continuing to work would entail danger to him , but for physical reasons.
Decision 18092
Full Text of Decision 18092
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
On preventative maternity leave. The argument that she was unable to do her normal work because of pregnancy does not suffice. The wording of Reg. 48(4) has the same meaning as that of 47(6). The insured person must be unable to perform the duties of another suitable job. See CONDON.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
meaning of incapable |
|
|
Decision 14668
Full Text of Decision 14668
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Para.18(2)(a) must be construed to refer to the illness of a claimant. Illness of claimant's son does not qualify. Also, reg. 47(6) surely suggests physical incapability of a claimant. Para.18(2)(a) is therefore clarified.
Decision 13184
Full Text of Decision 13184
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Board erred in law by concluding that claimant had not proved she was totally incapable of work. Para. 7(2)(a) does not require that claimant be totally incapable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 11136
Full Text of Decision 11136
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Having failed to prove her illness in the manner directed by the Commission, she is not entitled to an extension of her qualifying period under ss.7(2).
Decision 09194
Full Text of Decision 09194
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Claimant had been obliged both by his own choice and by provincial legislation to look after his sick mother. It is the claimant's own incapacity that can be considered and not that of a member of his family. The illness of a member is not legally acceptable.
Decision 09102
Full Text of Decision 09102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
Claimant was unemployed during the last 52 weeks. The reason he gave for being out of work was that he was at home taking care of his terminally ill wife. Under ss.18(2), one may extend the qualifying period for certain reasons, but it does not include this situation.
Decision A-0117.79
Full Text of Decision A-0117.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
illness |
Summary:
As per Umpire, the illness referred to in reg. 160(6), now 47(6), includes the illness of a child that renders a mother incapable of work. Judgment set aside by the Court. Reg. 160(6) refers solely to an illness suffered by a claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
sickness defined |
|
|
| umpires |
right of appeal |
late forwarding of docket |
|
Decision 65591
Full Text of Decision 65591
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
The claimant had been unable to work because of his commitment to the criminal court not to enter Ontario. The Board of Referees recognized that the claimant had not been incarcerated, but nonetheless found that the limitation on his movements imposed by the Court could qualify him for an extension of his qualifying period. The Umpire stated that there was no evidence that the claimant had been "confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution" as stipulated in paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Act. He restored the Commission's ruling.
Decision 23987
Full Text of Decision 23987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
Claimant was arrested and charged with a criminal offence in the state of New Jersey. He spent 3 weeks in jail. He then was granted bail on the condition that he surrender his passport and that he restrict travel to the state of New Jersey. The Board erred in law in equating bail to incarceration.
Decision A-1393.92
Full Text of Decision A-1393.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
Immigrant who left Canada on business. His passport expired while in China. He was then confined to a city, had to report to Chinese authorities on a daily basis in addition to performing some work for them. Returned after 14 months. As per GARLAND, institution need not be restricted to a building.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
Decision 21630
Full Text of Decision 21630
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
Refer to: A-1393.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
Decision 17332
Full Text of Decision 17332
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
Claimant went to Lebanon in search of his parents. He was taken hostage by an unidentified political party and held in an underground cell. There is no way he can prove this. His inability to do so renders him incapable of relying upon the extension provisions.
Decision A-1132.84
Full Text of Decision A-1132.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
Reg. 55 exempts inmates physically released from prison for certain purposes. In light of this and s.32, ss.7(2) must include those prisoners who, while not still remaining in physical confinement, are still within the class of inmates. [p. 11-12]
Released from jail on Temporary Absence on the specific condition that he reside and work on parents' farm. He thus completed his sentence outside institution subject to many conditions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
imprisonment |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
rationale |
Decision 09611
Full Text of Decision 09611
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Summary:
Left work to go on extended vacation. Found to be an illegal alien while visiting. Under 18(2), one must prove he was not employed for one of 4 reasons, in other words, that but for such alleged confinement he would have been working. No evidence he hadany work to come back to.
While visiting another country, claimant was found to be an illegal alien and was advised not to leave until his situation was cleared up by immigration. The Board erred in equating the refusal of the authorities to permit him to leave the island to a detention in an institution.
Decision 27838
Full Text of Decision 27838
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
jury |
Summary:
Held that the Board did not err in law in concluding that "other similar institution" includes claimant's binding obligation by law to accept jury duty. The reasoning in XUAN applies here. It would be contrary to public policy to deny an extension in such cases.
Decision 53548
Full Text of Decision 53548
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
labour dispute |
Summary:
Given that the right to strike in not constitutionally protected, the failure of the EIA to include a strike or a lockout as a ground for extending a claimant's qualifying period cannot be seen as an infringement of the right to associate as guaranteed by section 2(d) of the Charter. Parliament's decision not to extend the qualifying period of claimants in those circumstances does not interfere with the freedom of those claimants to associate in a trade union.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision 75712
Full Text of Decision 75712
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
The claimant's employment was terminated as of November 27, 2007 and he received severance payments. Because of the large severance package and the allocation of those monies, the claimant's benefit period was extended to 104 weeks, which is the maximum allowable in virtue of the legislation (section 10 of the Act). The Commission refused to pay benefits. The allocation of the claimant's separation monies went beyond the 104 weeks and that the claimant was unfortunately not payable any E.I. benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 24011B
Full Text of Decision 24011B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Claimant submits that ss. 7(7) violates s. 15 of the Charter because the time limit draws a discriminatory distinction between people who are ill less than 104 weeks and those with long-term illnesses lasting longer than 104 weeks. Held that the distinctions are not based on a prohibited ground.
Decision 24698
Full Text of Decision 24698
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Ss. 7(2)(b) permits the extension of the qualifying period for a person in jail but ss. 7(7) provides that no extension shall be for a period greater than 104 weeks and ss. 9(9) reiterates this for all claimants. Claimant had no insured weeks during the 104 weeks. He was in prison for 32 months.
Decision 19839
Full Text of Decision 19839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
There is provision in the Act for extending the qualifying period where illnesses occurred but the maximum extension permitted under the provisions of the Act is a further period of one year to bring the maximum qualifying period to two years.
Decision 17777
Full Text of Decision 17777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
The law does establish a cut-off period of 2 years. The law may be arbitrary but it is not necessarily discriminatory under the Charter. Claimant is not being treated differently than any other. The same cut-off period applies to all.
Decision 17501
Full Text of Decision 17501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
The maximum extension under ss.18(2) is 104 weeks. As it was not open to the Board to waive the statutory requirements so as to enable the claimant to be entitled to UI, it erred when it purported to do so.
Decision 15363
Full Text of Decision 15363
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Claimant in prison from 1-85 to 9-87. Maximum qualifying period of 104 weeks goes back to 9-85. Very specific provisions of the Act.
Decision 14226
Full Text of Decision 14226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
As the legislation now stands, there was no other conclusion that could have been reached by Commission and Board. Parliament has determined that 2 years is the maximum length of time a qualifying period can be extended for one who has been ill.
Decision 13895
Full Text of Decision 13895
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Ss.18(5) is clear. There can be no extension for greater than 104 weeks. Neither the Commission, a Board or an Umpire have the power to waive that requirement.
Decision 12656
Full Text of Decision 12656
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Under subs. 7(7) no extension can be made that would provide qualifying period greater than 104 weeks. Last day of work: 9-9-81; claim for benefit in 3-85. Neither Umpire nor board may amend Act which is very clear on this point.
Decision 11730
Full Text of Decision 11730
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Ceased work 26-8-82 and received workers' compensation until 5-5-84. Claim made 29-7-84 and qualifying period extended 104 weeks to 1-8-82. Only 4 weeks. Nothing to indicate that IO reached anything but the correct decision.
Decision 11114
Full Text of Decision 11114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum 104 weeks |
Summary:
Claim filed 17-2-85. Qualifying period extended to a maximum of 104 weeks but no weeks. Claimant had stopped work on 9-10-81 and was in receipt of worker's compensation which does not constitute insurable earnings. Absolute requirement.
Decision A0313.10
Full Text of Decision A0313.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
Summary:
The Commission extended the claimant's qualifying period by four weeks because the claimant had been unable to work for a six-week period due to a work-related injury. The Commission was unable to further extend the claimant's qualifying period because of a prior benefit period. His application was denied because he had not worked the requisite number of hours during his qualifying period. The FCA found that s. 8(1) provides for two possible qualifying periods and the shorter of the two possibilities is the applicable qualifying period.
Decision 18925
Full Text of Decision 18925
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
Summary:
Refer to: A-1073.90
Decision A-1073.90
Full Text of Decision A-1073.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
Summary:
When s. 7 is read in the context as a whole it is necessary to apply the modifiers in ss. (2) through (7) before determining which of the periods mentioned in (1)(a) and (1)(b) is "the shorter". Extension not allowed beyond commencement date of previous benefit period.
Decision 16127
Full Text of Decision 16127
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
Summary:
Start of the claim period 6-2-86; start of the 2nd claim period: 8-2-87; request for extension based on disability from
14-5-87 to 1-2-87. The qualifying period can only be extended pursuant to 18(1)(a) and not 18(1)(b) and cannot be retroactive beyond 6-2-86.
Decision 12837
Full Text of Decision 12837
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
Summary:
If an extension were allowed, the qualifying period would start prior to the commencement of the previous benefit period. CUB 7877 quoted with approval: the same insurable weeks cannot be used more than once to establish benefit periods.
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 |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Decision 12031
Full Text of Decision 12031
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
Summary:
Qualifying period in 7(1)(b) cannot be extended. [pp. 4-5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| maternity benefits |
major attachment requirement |
|
|
Decision 75264
Full Text of Decision 75264
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant was denied an extension of his E. I benefit qualifying period. He held that Canadian immigration had sent him back to the United States due to external circumstances beyond his control and that he did not leave Canada of his own accord. He was not re-admitted to Canada until June 8, 2009. The Commission determined that it could not extend the claimant's qualifying period because his situation did not meet the conditions under which an extension is allowed. He argued that if the Act could extend the qualifying period for an inmate who has committed a crime, it could not deny the same to an exile. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 64646
Full Text of Decision 64646
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant had requested that the insurable hours of employment she accumulated in 2003 be allowed and applied to qualify her claim - but the Umpire and the BOR stated that the Act does not provide for an extension of the qualifying period for absence from Canada.
Decision 28281
Full Text of Decision 28281
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Hospitalized 6 months during her stay in France. According to the CEIC, the claimant did not demonstrate that had it not been for his incapability he would otherwise be available for work, being outside of Canada. Based on CUB 16819 the Board rightfully refused the extension requested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 26427
Full Text of Decision 26427
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Claimant left his employment to engage in missionary work as a volunteer and left the country. On his return to Canada, he had only 2 insurable weeks in his qualifying period. Unfortunately, the statute does not provide for an extension of the qualifying period in such a case.
Decision 24218
Full Text of Decision 24218
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
While on a 3-month vacation in Portugal, claimant was diagnosed as having cancer. Surgery and chemo-therapy delayed her return to Canada for 6 months. Para._7(2)(a) is inapplicable, says the Commission, because she was on vacation when she became incapable of work. I do not read this in 7(2)(a).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 18661
Full Text of Decision 18661
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Left for Ecuador in 3-88. Due to return 7-88 but fell sick. Return ticket not submitted but medical evidence on file. The Board did not err in finding that she failed to establish that the sole reason she was not employed in insurable employment in Canada was illness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 16819
Full Text of Decision 16819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Left employment in Canada 31-7-86 to move to Australia where she worked until hospitalized in 11-86. Returned to Canada in 9-87. Extension possible under ss.7(2) if one not employed in insurable employment due to illness. The crucial expression here is insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
applicability |
Decision 14946
Full Text of Decision 14946
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Following last day worked, claimant went out of Canada for 1 year with husband posted in Germany as member of the Canadian Armed Forces. She feels that she should be allowed an extension.
Decision 12235
Full Text of Decision 12235
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
The claimant suggests she was confined by the "institution of marriage" [to explain her stay in England for one year], but that is not the kind of institution meant by ss.18(2).
Decision 11223
Full Text of Decision 11223
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Resigned her position to accompany husband to Australia. Returned 12 months later. Alleges unfairness. Not covered by the term "quarantine". Parliament's wisdom not to grant extensions to those absent from country.
Decision 09400
Full Text of Decision 09400
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
out of canada |
Summary:
Claimant resigned to follow husband overseas. Upon her return 4 years later, she contends she should have the same right as is given to one confined in a jail.
Decision 75782A
Full Text of Decision 75782A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
rationale |
Summary:
The claimant had worked for a total of 525 hours. The Commission determined she would require 595 hours and refused her benefits. The claimant appealed on the grounds she reviewed the legislation that allowed for an extension to one’s qualifying period, which included the condition “confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution.” After the twins were born in September 2008, she returned to work in April 2009 and was layoff. The claimant stated in her appeal that it was a poor distinction that someone confined to jail could have their qualifying period extended but a mother with 3 month old twins thereby confined to her home could not receive the same consideration. Appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A-0451.85
Full Text of Decision A-0451.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
rationale |
Summary:
The circumstances described in 7(2)(a),(b),(c) and (d) have a common rationale. They all envisage a factual scenario in which the applicant is not available for employment through external circumstances beyond his or her control. [Heald J., p. 9]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
imprisonment |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
change of wording |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
Decision A-1132.84
Full Text of Decision A-1132.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
rationale |
Summary:
The situations detailed in 7(2)(a) to (d) have a common rationale: non-availability through external circumstances beyond control. Parliament has manifested a clear intention to relieve individuals caught from unfair consequences. [p. 9-10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
imprisonment |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
incarcerated |
Decision 69702
Full Text of Decision 69702
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
workers' compens. |
Summary:
Even with the maximum extension, the claimant did not have sufficient insurable employment to qualify. Weeks during which a claimant did not work but received workers' compensation benefits are not weeks of insurable employment.
Decision 17866
Full Text of Decision 17866
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
workers' compens. |
Summary:
The allowances paid by the Commission de la Santé et de la Sécurité du Travail following preventative withdrawal from work because of pregnancy are not the result of an occupational illness and therefore cannot be extended.
