Decision 77732
Full Text of Decision 77732
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The claimant did not agree with the benefit rate determined by the Commission. Subsection 14(1) of the Act indicates that the weekly rate of employment insurance benefits payable to the claimant is an amount equal to 55% of his weekly insurable earnings. The Board finds as a fact that the Commission correctly calculated the claimant’s benefit rate. The Board also finds as a fact that the Commission correctly followed Legislation to calculate the rate calculation period. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76715
Full Text of Decision 76715
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Decision 73537
Full Text of Decision 73537
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Based on the information provided, the Commission determined the claimant's weekly rate of benefit at $193.00. In his appeal to the BoR the claimant explained that he worked an abnormal schedule in seasonal employment. He worked long hours during winter and, in 2009, he had been prevented from working more hours by reason of the downturn in the oil industry. He requested that his rate of benefits be reviewed. Before the BoR the claimant pointed out that he had earned most of his income for the previous year within a three month period. He indicated that most of his employment had been outside his calculation period, that is the 26 weeks prior to his application for benefits. The Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the Commission's calculation of the claimant's rate of benefits was in accordance with the Employment Insurance Act. The Umpire dismissed the claimant's appeal.
Decision A-0323.06
Full Text of Decision A-0323.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
This case involves the determination of the amount of insurable earnings where a record of employment overlaps into the rate calculation period. It also involves whether the allocation exception in section 24 of the EI Regulations applies should the claimant or the employer present evidence of the insurable earnings actually earned in the rate calculation period. Application of the exception could result in a weekly benefit rate of $413 instead of $381 as was determined by the Commission. The Court ruled that the lump sum adjustment in salary the claimant, a teacher, received for past service, although paid in the rate calculation period, was earned over the course of the contract period. It was properly allocated by the Commission over the period of the claimant's contract of employment as per subsection 23(2) of the EIR.
Decision 68898
Full Text of Decision 68898
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The Commission calculated the benefit rate properly as follows:
$170 (earnings during the rate calculation period) divided by 19 (divisor) = $8.95 (average weekly insurable earnings) x 55% = $4.92 or $5 (benefit rate). The Board erred in deciding otherwise.
Decision 68643
Full Text of Decision 68643
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Pilot Project # 7 for Pince Edward Island is of no help to the claimant since there is no way to go back beyond the 52 week qualifying period to capture any higher earnings to yield a higher weekly rate of benefit.
Decision 66593
Full Text of Decision 66593
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The Commission had extended the rate calculation period by 12 weeks by reason of the claimant's absence from work due to illness. This allowed for an increase from $164 to $ 296 in the weekly benefit rate. The Board erred in adding another week of earnings outside the rate calculation period and its extension in order to increase the weekly benefit rate.
Decision 69216
Full Text of Decision 69216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
For the purpose of calculating the weekly rate of benefit, the Commission allocated the claimant's accumulated vacation pay ($689 over 7 months) under subparagraph 23(1)(a)(iii) of the EI Regulations proportionately over the two weeks of the company's annual shutdown, which is treated by the employer as vacation leave. The claimant had wanted the allocation to be made at the rate of her normal weekly earnings of $616 under paragraph 36(8)(a) of the EI Regulations starting with the first week of the shutdown.
Decision 63046
Full Text of Decision 63046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The Umpire concluded that the Board of Referees erred in taking into consideration all the claimant's insurable earnings during the 52-week qualifying period in setting the benefit rate. The rate calculation period that should be used to calculate the benefit rate is defined in section 14 of the EI Act.
Decision A-0319.02
Full Text of Decision A-0319.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Identical case to Jacques Carle, see summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0321.02
Full Text of Decision A-0321.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Identical case to Jacques Carle, see summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0320.02
Full Text of Decision A-0320.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Identical case to Jacques Carle, see summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0315.02
Full Text of Decision A-0315.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The claimant banked the hours that he worked on a part-time basis to create full work weeks that were reported on his Record of Employment. The Court held that when the Minister of National Revenue has rendered his decision on an issue relating to the insurability of an employment and no appeal has been filed with the Tax Court of Canada, the decision becomes final and is binding on the Commission. The Umpire erred in ordering the Commission to revamp the request to the Minister for a ruling.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0314.02
Full Text of Decision A-0314.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Identical case to Jacques Carle, see summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0316.02
Full Text of Decision A-0316.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Identical case to Jacques Carle, see summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0317.02
Full Text of Decision A-0317.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Identical case to Jacques Carle, see summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision 56505
Full Text of Decision 56505
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Due to a motor vehicle accident, the claimant had been prevented from working between Oct. 21, 2000 and Oct. 10, 2001. Claimant's rate of benefits was calculated to be $180 based on 10 weeks in which the claimant had insurable earnings within the calculation period that was determined to be the period from June 10 and Dec. 8, 2001. The divisor was determined to be 21 since it was the greater of the number of weeks in the rate calculation period in which the claimant had insurable earnings and the divisor according to the table in the legislation. The Umpire found no error in the BOR' decision and the appeal was dismissed.
Decision A-0659.01
Full Text of Decision A-0659.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The claimants returned to work for one week after establishing a claim for benefits. That week was deemed to be the last pay period, as in subsection 23(1.1) of the EI Regulations, for the purpose of allocating a retroactive pay increase received later, preventing a higher benefit rate. The Federal Court of Appeal defined the phrase "regular salary, wages or commissions" found in subsection 23(1.1) and as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Abrahams, concluded that the word "regular" was to be used with the connotation of continuity. The Court determined that when the claimants went back to work for a week, it was "casual and intermittent" and the payments received for that week was not "regular salary".
Decision 52422
Full Text of Decision 52422
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0703.01
Decision A-0703.01
Full Text of Decision A-0703.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant had received 67 weeks of benefits since 30-06-1996. In October 2000, claimant was told that his benefit rate would be set at 52% of his weekly insurable earnings under sections 14 and 15 of the EIA. Umpire dismissed the claimant's appeal but the Court, on the Commission's recommendation, allowed the application for judicial review and ordered, without providing reasons, that the benefit rate be calculated under section 14 only. Judgment with no jurisprudential value.
Decision 53845
Full Text of Decision 53845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0315.02
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0488.00
Full Text of Decision A-0488.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Case similar to Victoria Sveinson's. See summary indexed under FCA A-0551.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
role |
|
|
Decision A-0551.00
Full Text of Decision A-0551.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
As a result of a new collective agreement, claimant received a retroactive pay increase, part of which was paid in respect of the period of her employment relevant for calculating her benefits. Payment received after obtaining other employment. She applied for an adjustment to the employment insurance benefits that she had received on the ground that her retroactive pay raise had increased her insurable earnings. The Commission denied her request but Umpire allowed it. Held by FCA that Reg. 23(1)(b) prescribed that all the listed non-regular items of remuneration are to be attributed to the time of their receipt, whether or not they were in fact paid in respect of a specific period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
role |
|
|
Decision 50072A
Full Text of Decision 50072A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0659.01
Decision A-0774.99
Full Text of Decision A-0774.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant was working at two jobs and had to leave one in March 1997 for preventative withdrawal (PW) reasons. She received PW benefits for six months while continuing to work at her second job. When she filed her claim for maternity benefits in September 1997, her rate was based on the insurable earnings from just job no. 2, whereas she wanted both of her jobs to be taken into consideration. BOR and the Umpire agreed with her. Decisions overturned by the FCA. Referring to the decision in Cymerman (A-0415.95), the Court ruled that the rate calculation period was the 26-week period ending with the week prior to the start of her benefit period.
Decision 49444
Full Text of Decision 49444
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Retroactive payment of compensation (settlement of collective agreement of a number of federal public service employees) which, although it covered part of the base period used to calculate the benefit rate, was paid after the claimant had gone back to work. Claimant asked for an adjustment of her insurable earnings during the base period. Request denied by the Commission under subsection 23(1) of the Regulations. Decision upheld by the Umpire.
Decision 48552
Full Text of Decision 48552
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Case similar to Victoria Sveinson's. See summary indexed under FCA A-0551.00
Decision 48893
Full Text of Decision 48893
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0551.00.
Decision 47914
Full Text of Decision 47914
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Because of the "intensity rule" claimant's benefit rate was calculated at 51% instead of the usual 55% since claimant had received 92 weeks of regular benefits between June 30, 1996 and July 20, 1999. Claimant protests against what he considers to be unfairness in the EIA. No relief can be offered to the claimant in this regard. The Act has been applied in accord with its terms.
Decision 47726
Full Text of Decision 47726
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Benefit rate calculated at 54% instead of the 55% due to the fact that claimant since June 30 1996 had received 22 weeks of weekly benefits. Claimant challenged the reduction for the reason he had to repay an overpayment of $4000 which, he contended, had the effect of reducing the period he received benefits to less than 20 weeks. Held by Umpire that BOR erred in law in not applying SS.38(3) of the EIA.
Decision 46427
Full Text of Decision 46427
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0774.99
Decision 41906
Full Text of Decision 41906
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The BOR ignored the specific requirements of the legislation (S.14 of the EIA) to determine the weekly rate of benefits. Held by Umpire that the BOR was wrong in taking into account all of the claimant's insurable earnings included in the 52 week qualifying period to establish the benefit rate. Evidence clearly established that a period of employment was prior to the "rate calculation period" of 26 consecutive weeks.
Decision 41097
Full Text of Decision 41097
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant challenged the fact that the Commission had taken into account his part-time employment in calculating his benefit rate and total number of weeks of insurable employment since he had only taken the job as a favour. Umpire stated that the Act does not distinguish between part-time and full-time employment, nor does it make a distinction between a job done as a favour and a regular job. Umpire thus found that the calculation was in accordance with the Act.
Decision 33387
Full Text of Decision 33387
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Reg.35(4) provides that allocation of earnings for a person paid by commissions only at irregular intervals is made by determining average weekly earnings by dividing the total commissions paid in a year by the number of weeks of employment calculated in accord with ss.36(4) and (5) of the UI Reg.
Decision A-0415.95
Full Text of Decision A-0415.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Severance pay of $48,892 allocated from 30-6-91 to 20-9-92. During that time, claimant worked from 3-12-91 to 16-6-92 in insurable employment but earned no money and no premiums paid. Stating that the claimant's employment did not end until final allocation of sev. pay, Umpire ordered that benefit rate be calculated on the second last employment. FCA ruled that the rate of benefit is calculated on the most recent 20 insurable weeks of employment. Once RCT rules employment insurable, it must remain the rate qualifying period even though there was no remuneration and the benefit rate is zero.**Claimants do not make claims in respect of particular employments but rather in respect of a loss of employment and a corresponding interruption of earnings. A claimant cannot pick and choose which employment or employments in respect of which he or she wishes to make a claim. Commission appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
Decision 30939
Full Text of Decision 30939
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant had two jobs; left the first on 1-07-92 (preventive withdrawal) and the second on 22-01-93 (maternity). Request that rate be calculated on the basis of the 20 weeks before the preventive withdrawal. According to section 13 of the Act, the rate must be calculated on the basis of the last 20 weeks prior to the BPC..
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
employed |
Decision 28150
Full Text of Decision 28150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Held that a revised allocation of earnings pursuant to subsection 58(9.1) of the Regulations, also affects the week in which the interruption of earnings occurs and consequently the calculation of the rate of benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
Decision 27950
Full Text of Decision 27950
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Employed full-time until 6-91. Termination monies allocated to 9-92. Part-time employment in real estate for 32 weeks from 12-91 to 6-92 with no earnings ruled insurable. Held that the part-time employment must be ignored in the calculation of the benefit rate as monies were allocated until 9-92.
Decision 26442
Full Text of Decision 26442
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Worked only 2 days per week in recent months. The WC made up the difference between part-time and full-time salaries, under the "preventive withdrawal" clause. Rate correctly based on insurable earnings, namely on the part-time work.
Decision 26084
Full Text of Decision 26084
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant submits that, for a real estate agent whose earnings are made on a commission basis and therefore not paid on a regular basis, the Act is unfair since it restricts the period for assessing earnings to the last 20 weeks when earnings in the last 52 weeks may have been significantly higher.
Decision A-0061.94
Full Text of Decision A-0061.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
After losing his full-time job, claimant accepted part-time work which was still continuing when he filed his UI claim. Rate based on part-time job. ESHTON-ROSE distinguished. 2 employments held concurrently should be dealt with separately; only the employment lost should be used in calculating benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 23887
Full Text of Decision 23887
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0061.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 24696
Full Text of Decision 24696
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The Commission agent took claimant's total earnings of $6,912.63 over 22 weeks to arrive at an average of $314.21 a week. Held that the Commission should obtain corrected figures based on "actual" insurable earnings for the last 20 weeks only of insurable employment.
Decision A-1206.92
Full Text of Decision A-1206.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Stopped working due to illness but salary continued to be paid as per a contract clause. 75% reimbursed by insurance. While he had an obligation to endorse the cheques paid to him by the insurance company over to the employer, this does not alter the character of the payments. Concurred by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Decision 21366
Full Text of Decision 21366
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1206.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Decision 20901
Full Text of Decision 20901
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0528.92
Decision A-0528.92
Full Text of Decision A-0528.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant has 42 insured weeks of full-time employment followed by 8 insured weeks of part-time with the same employer. The Umpire, based on FORTIN D., held that only the full-time employment should have been used in calculating the rate. FORTIN D. no longer applies in view of new s. 36.1.
We are all of the view that FORTIN D. is no longer applicable in view of the coming into force of s. 36.1 which makes it clear that the earnings to be taken into account to determine the average weekly insurable earnings in the qualifying weeks are those earnings for which a premium was payable.
Decision 20394A
Full Text of Decision 20394A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Employed by Goodyear whose work weeks alternate between 32 and 48 hours for an average of 40 hours; wishes his rate to be calculated on the 40-hour average. Decided that insurable earnings only must be used for rate calculations.
Decision 21670
Full Text of Decision 21670
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
After being laid off, the insured gets a pay increase retroactive to the period during which he was working; wishes his rate to be changed to take increase into account. Section 13, Reg. 36.1 on UI and Reg. 3.1 on premiums examined.
Decision 21420
Full Text of Decision 21420
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Manager for Plaza Nissan who, in addition to a weekly salary, was paid a bonus every 4th week based on percentage of parts and service department sales. For these bonus weeks maximum UI premiums were paid. He contended that his rate should have been based on his actual earnings.
Decision 18744A
Full Text of Decision 18744A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Received a weekly salary based on 44 hours even though the weeks varied because of the weather; salary received: $5,417; owed 142 hours to his employer at the time of termination; continued to work without pay. Rate recalculated and based on $4,193 (actual hours).
Decision 20520
Full Text of Decision 20520
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The bonus paid twice a year is insurable during the pay period in which paid and cannot be averaged over the 6 months. The result is that every 6th month, the monthly bonus is insurable to the maximum allowed, while the intervening months are insurable for the basic wage paid.
Decision 19590
Full Text of Decision 19590
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Last job was part-time work in real estate with minimal insurable earnings. Rate of benefit to be based on last 20 weeks, not last 52. Earnings from a previous employment cannot be taken into account. Collection of Premiums Regulations cannot be used toalter this.
Decision A-0037.90
Full Text of Decision A-0037.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
As per SC in CP Ltd, the tips paid directly by customers to a waiter are not insurable. The employer's control is seen as being imperative. S. 3(1) amended since, i.e. in 1985, but control and payment by the employer are still mandatory. Upheld in FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
tips |
|
Decision A-0063.90
Full Text of Decision A-0063.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Weekly rate of benefit properly calculated. Not to be based on the last 20 weeks of work but on the last 20 insured weeks, of which 15 consisted of insurable paid sick leave and non-insurable wage-loss benefits. Upheld by FC.
Decision 17625
Full Text of Decision 17625
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0037.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
tips |
|
Decision 17680
Full Text of Decision 17680
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0063.90
Decision 18847
Full Text of Decision 18847
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Worked as realtor from 1-8-85 to 2-8-86 earning $840 in the 52-week period. From 1-8-86 to 31-1-87 he worked for Canada Trust but had no earnings. Although he had a sufficient number of weeks to establish a claim, the rate of benefit was nil [60% of no earnings in last 20 weeks].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Decision 18471
Full Text of Decision 18471
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
$3570 received under a wage-loss insurance plan and $3738 from the employer as a top-up in the last 20 weeks. Only the amount paid by the employer is insurable. The fact that the employer paid the full amount and was then reimbursed by the insurance company is irrelevant.
Decision 18429
Full Text of Decision 18429
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
After termination of full-time employment, severance and vacation pay were allocated over the subsequent 17 weeks during which claimant continued to work part-time. Rate of benefit based on 14 weeks of part-time work and 6 weeks of both full and part-time work.
Decision 18113
Full Text of Decision 18113
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
General manager of a company who continued to work at a lesser salary to assist with the liquidation process. He requests that qualifying weeks used for determination of benefit rate be for a period other than that set forth in the Act. That however is not within my power to do.
Decision 17911
Full Text of Decision 17911
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked full-time several years. He quit to attend university and obtained work at lesser rate. He contends he would have received a higher rate had he applied for UI without delay, that he should not be penalized for accepting work. No discretion to depart from statute.
Decision A-0897.88
Full Text of Decision A-0897.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Main employment at $400 weekly terminates. Severance pay allocated over 13 weeks. Part-time work at $90 a week continues. Rate computed by CEIC based on 7 weeks at $490 and 13 weeks at $90. Overturned by Federal Court on different grounds.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
dual employment |
|
|
Decision 15797A
Full Text of Decision 15797A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
A car salesperson who received an advance each month against commissions subsequently earned was not "a person remunerated only by commissions paid at irregular intervals" under reg. 36(4) for the purpose of computing the weekly rate of benefit.
Car salesperson who received an advance each month against commissions earned. Employed from 7-1-85 to 5-6-87. Rate of benefit correctly based on earnings from 1-1-87 to 5-6-87 under reg. 36(4) including weeks during which she took no draws and receivedno commission.
Under 36(4) a person may have nil earnings in some weeks, yet such weeks are still to be included as insured weeks unless illness or other exception. Reg. 36(4) and (5) simply include in the average of earnings over the 20 weeks any week in which claimant received no commission.
Decision 16948
Full Text of Decision 16948
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Insurance agent whose rate of benefit, calculated first on the basis of 20 insurable weeks, was then adjusted downwards in accordance with Reg. 36(4) and (5), taking the average of the 52 weeks. Error in law; section 24 of the Act takes priority.
Decision 14985A
Full Text of Decision 14985A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Insurability ruling from Revenue Canada indicates that insurable earnings totalled $1,888, not $2,888. UI rate reduced retroactively. As Umpire I have no jurisdiction to alter the findings of Revenue Canada. Appeal lies elsewhere.
Decision 16858
Full Text of Decision 16858
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Claimant had earnings of $8,108 during the last 20 insured weeks. Rate calculated as $8,108/20 x 60% = $243. There are no errors in this calculation. There are no other factors to consider: not the quantum of weekly benefits from past claims, not the number of years contributed.
Decision 16502
Full Text of Decision 16502
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Real estate agent who earned $3,309 in the last 20 weeks. It is total earnings during the last 20 weeks of employment which must be considered, even though earnings in some of those weeks may have been nil. This is clear from ss.13(2).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
new ownership |
|
Decision 16483
Full Text of Decision 16483
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
In 8 of the 20 weeks on which the rate of benefit is calculated, claimant was on wage loss insurance payments and only earnings of $180 received from employer were insurable. The apparent inequity is a matter which requires legislative action.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 16353
Full Text of Decision 16353
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Earnings of $400 a week until 23-3-83, earnings of $134 and wage loss insurance of $267 until 3-10-83. Only the $134 earning is insurable. Wage loss insurance benefits are inot nsurable as they have not been paid by the employer. Benefit rate based on the $134 salary.
Decision 16273
Full Text of Decision 16273
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The insured received worker's compensation benefits plus certain amounts that made out the difference between his regular salary and the benefits. Only the amounts were insurable, so that the rate of benefit was reduced retroactively. Refer to BLONDIN.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
Decision 15626
Full Text of Decision 15626
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0897.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
dual employment |
|
|
Decision 15577
Full Text of Decision 15577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Salesman whose earnings for the last 20 weeks consisted of a weekly advance of $145. Reg. 10(1) of Collection of Premiums examined. S.13 is clear that rate is 60% of earnings in last 20 weeks. This applies to a draw against anticipated sales revenue.
Decision 13410
Full Text of Decision 13410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0209.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Decision A-0209.87
Full Text of Decision A-0209.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Non-insurable earnings (workers' compensation) received in certain weeks together with insurable salary as top-up. Rate of benefit based on top-up only. Ss. 18(2) and para. 57(2)(b) are of no help to claimant. S. 24 does not offend Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Decision 14249
Full Text of Decision 14249
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Rate based on last 20 insured weeks even though in 10 of these there were no insurable earnings. Claimant held insurable employment for 10 weeks as commissioned salesperson and earned no commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
insured earnings nil |
|
Decision 13331
Full Text of Decision 13331
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Total insured earnings for last 20 weeks of insurable employment [$6,748] divided by 20 weeks [$337.40] multiplied by 60% [$202]. Those calculations are correct.
Decision 13006
Full Text of Decision 13006
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Difficult to reconcile calculation of benefit under Reg. 9 and rate of benefit under s. 24; 2 calculations different and for different reasons. [real estate agent whose rate based on last 20 insurable weeks]
Decision 12616
Full Text of Decision 12616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
For a major attachment claimant, the benefit rate is computed on the weekly average salary during claimant's last 20 insurable weeks regardless of the number of jobs held, and whether one was less lucrative.
Decision 11893
Full Text of Decision 11893
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Ceased work due to illness. Paid sickness benefits by employer for 16 weeks at 75% of salary. These were insurable earnings. Benefit rate subsequently established at 60% of insurable earnings. The decision of the Commission appears to be the only one permissible.
Decision A-1496.84
Full Text of Decision A-1496.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
The Commission has also, pursuant to s.44 of the Act, made UI Reg. 35(4) [p. 6]. The Board erred only in concluding that Reg. 35(4) was ultra vires [p. 10].
The Commission erred in law as it ignored the definition of income in Reg. 57 and the particular requirement of 57(6)(d) in concluding that the value of accommodation and horse board was not insurable earnings. [p. 10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision 10794
Full Text of Decision 10794
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Injured worker; insurable earnings much lower than usual salary; compensation payments not insurable. Rate based on 20 insurable weeks; extension of qualifying period would therefore be of no assistance.
Decision A-1865.83
Full Text of Decision A-1865.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
I understand claimant may only be entitled to benefits much lower because he did not file in time. He had been employed over 30 years full-time and only 5 months part-time. But good cause for delay not present. [p. 18]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
employed |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision 63507D
Full Text of Decision 63507D
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
Divisor |
Summary:
Rate of benefit was properly calculated, under paragraph 14(2)(b) of the Act, according to the applicable divisor based on the regional rate of umployment of the area where the claimant resided.
Decision A0476.12
Full Text of Decision A0476.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
Family supplement |
Summary:
The claimant applied for benefits in July 2011. Her benefit rate was increased by the amount of a family supplement as a result of the application of section 16 of the EI Act, which increases the benefit rates of low-income claimants with one or more dependent children if they are in receipt of the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) under the Income Tax Act. The Commission ceased paying the claimant the family supplement when it received information from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in August 2011 that the claimant was no longer receiving the CCTB. The FCA determined that the evidence before the BOR was insufficient to conclude that the claimant was in receipt of the CCTB, but that this was cured by the new evidence presented to the Umpire.
Decision 70052
Full Text of Decision 70052
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
Family supplement |
Summary:
A claimant has no right to the family supplement if he has no right to the child tax credit, this latter question belonging to the Canada Revenue Agency.
Decision 23667
Full Text of Decision 23667
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
One would not expect that a claimant's benefits would be reduced for the entire benefit period in cases where there are extenuating circumstances which warranted the imposition of anything less than the maximum 12 weeks' disqualification.
To determine the duration of the reduced rate under ss. 30(7), the following are relevant: (a) the length of the disqualification; (b) the severity of the claimant's conduct; (c) all of the circumstances that led to the claimant leaving his employment; (d) any other extenuating circumstances.
Decision 21318
Full Text of Decision 21318
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1124.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A-1124.92
Full Text of Decision A-1124.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
Section 30(7) and the reference to it in s. 30(6) are only meaningful if the Commission is vested with the additional power to determine how long the rate reduction will apply. [Then, not automatically to the balance of the benefit period].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 21695
Full Text of Decision 21695
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
The CEIC does have discretion to impose the reduction for only a limited number of weeks. The Board has jurisdiction to refer the issue back to the CEIC for reconsideration: whether the reduction for the total length of her claim is appropriate and require a report on this.
Decision A-1449.92
Full Text of Decision A-1449.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
Rate reduced for the duration of the benefit period. Nothing in the record shows that the discretion was ever exercised by the Commission. The Commission had an obligation in law to exercise the discretion vested in it in respect of the period during which the reduced rate would extend.
Once the Umpire decided that the ss. 30(7) discretion had not been exercised at all, he ought to have referred the matter back to the Board with directions that the Board should remit the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration on the basis that it exercise its discretion under ss. 30(7).
The Umpire erred in finding that the reduced rate should have terminated on 31-8-91. Ss. 30(7) confers a discretion on the Commission. The Umpire is not allowed to exercise a discretion that the legislation explicitly confers on the Commission itself.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Decision 21673
Full Text of Decision 21673
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
While ss.30(7) may be somewhat ambiguous in applying the reduction only to "such weeks as the Commission may determine", it is certainly clear that only the Commission may make this determination as it is beyond the authority of the Board. The Board exceeded its jurisdiction.
Decision 21688
Full Text of Decision 21688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1449.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Decision 20509
Full Text of Decision 20509
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Summary:
The CEIC takes the position that a 50% reduction in benefits is required by ss.30(6). This is too categorical a view. Ss.30(7) allows the CEIC to determine the number of weeks to which the reduction should be applied. This presumably should vary depending on circumstances.
