Summary of Issue: Disqualification

Decision 23667 Full Text of Decision 23667

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 A-1124.92 Full Text of Decision A-1124.92

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].

Decision 21318 Full Text of Decision 21318

Refer to: A-1124.92

Decision 21688 Full Text of Decision 21688

Refer to: A-1449.92

Decision 21673 Full Text of Decision 21673

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 A-1449.92 Full Text of Decision A-1449.92

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.

Decision 21695 Full Text of Decision 21695

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 20509 Full Text of Decision 20509

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.