Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision 76715 Full Text of Decision 76715

The claimant had to reduce his hours of employment and in so doing, the insurable hours decreased along with his insurable earnings. He had to leave his employment on a permanent basis because of illness; the Commission applied the provisions of subsection 14(4) of the Act and proceeded to calculate his earnings over the last period of employment. The claimant feels it is unfair the Commission calculated the rate on the basis of a reduced number of hours, from 40 to 30 hours. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A-0717.98 Full Text of Decision A-0717.98

Despite the FCA decision in Hoek (A-0089.99) which determined that Reg. 94.1 is clearly mandatory, the dissenting member held that Reg. 94.1 was not. He was of the view that since the reasons expressed in the Hoek decision did not contain any reference to the interpretative approaches laid down in Abrahams, Hills and Normandin, he considered that he did not have to follow that decision.**NOTE: It was agreed not to appeal this case to the Supreme Court on that particular issue, the Commission being of the opinion that the FCA decision rendered in Hoek represents the correct interpretation of the law.

Decision A-0089.99 Full Text of Decision A-0089.99

Reg. 94.1 is a provision of substance, not of procedure and is clearly mandatory. It stipulates that weeks of insurable employment that were worked prior to 01-01-97 are converted into hours of insurable employment and this conversion is made on the basis of 35 hours per week worked. It is a provision that applies automatically whenever a worker seeks to be credited for work done prior 01-01-97. It is not a provision which a claimant may choose to invoke or not to invoke.

Decision 42615 Full Text of Decision 42615

See summary indexed under FCA A-0717.98

Decision A-0247.96 Full Text of Decision A-0247.96

Claimant claimed that because he was employed in insurable employment as the operator of a business, the Commission could not disqualify him from receiving benefits under Reg. 43(1). FCA maintained that this argument was unacceptable because, although the insurability of the employment is an essential condition for entitlement, it is not a guarantee. Furthermore, it added that if the decision in Venditelli (A-800.81) can be interpreted in this way, it should not be used as a precedent.

Decision 32697 Full Text of Decision 32697

Refer to FCA A-0247.96

Decision 14707 Full Text of Decision 14707

He says that it is unfair to deem the money as earnings but not insurable income. It has been raised in previous cases without success. If there is unfairness, to attack the provisions under the FC Act may be the only way the constitutional question canbe addressed. [p. 6]

Decision A-0458.81 Full Text of Decision A-0458.81

The argument that insurability must be determined at the time the claimant is employed rather than in accordance with a statutory provision subsequently amended carries much weight. However, this is not the issue here.