Summary of Issue: Attending Classes

Decision A-0145.03 Full Text of Decision A-0145.03

The claimant took a leave of absence from her part-time employment in order to pursue her studies. The Court agreed with the Commission that both the BOR and the Umpire erred in failing to consider the reason why the claimant left her employment and to deal with the reasonable alternatives aspect of the case.

Decision A-0442.96 Full Text of Decision A-0442.96

According to the Umpire, the Board of Referees erred in law since it did not properly consider the evidence of the claimant’s employment in previous years. He found that the claimant had certainly demonstrated that she had a history of work and school leading to the conclusion that she could fulfil the conditions set out in s. 14(a) of the Act. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision since he had the authority to intervene and decide on all the issues of law and fact.

Decision A-0719.91 Full Text of Decision A-0719.91

According to the Umpire, established jurisprudence has confirmed that a student taking full-time courses is not available. This rule is subject to 2 exceptions: a student referred to a course and one who has established a pattern of work and studies. Errow in law. Observation too categorical.

Decision 20021 Full Text of Decision 20021

Refer to: A-0719.91

Decision 21808 Full Text of Decision 21808

The Board erred in law by ignoring the provisions of para. 14(a) and the developed body of case law pertaining to claimants taking courses, and applying instead its own test criterion of "special circumstances" for which there is no statutory mandate whatever.

Decision 20613 Full Text of Decision 20613

The Board erred in law by ignoring the fundamental rule applicable to full-time students not referred to the course and attaching undue credence to self-serving assertions of work availability outside of class hours, in the absence of any history of part-time employment activity.

Decision 20599 Full Text of Decision 20599

The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.

Decision 20600 Full Text of Decision 20600

Board's error in law. It in fact considered only one element, to wit that the student was ready to drop her course if someone called her for work as she had family obligations. This fact alone is not sufficient.

Decision 19938 Full Text of Decision 19938

Courses begin 5-9-88. Board clearly erred in law. Could not base itself on simple period of work during holidays, from 7-12-88 to 23-1-89 to come to conclusion beneficiary had established history of employment as set out in jurisprudence.

Decision 16095A Full Text of Decision 16095A

Left teaching work to be closer to university. The courses required him to attend 6 hours a week but on 4 separate mornings. He said he would be available when not attending classes. The Board gave proper effect to the well established presumption. No error in law.

Decision 16165 Full Text of Decision 16165

Leaves full-time work to attend a course. The CEIC contends that the Board erred in considering a history of work and school that occurred 4 years earlier. No error of law nor perverse or capricious finding. Non-availability not automatic. Presumption may be rebutted. Job search.

Decision 14677 Full Text of Decision 14677

The Board agreed that he is attending a course to which not referred and therefore is disentitled. The issue was availability. The Board misdirected itself and erred in law by failing to consider the usual tests of availability. Non-referral is not an absolute prohibition. [p._7]

Decision 14550 Full Text of Decision 14550

Many decisions have held that UI benefits are not intended as a subsidy to enable a claimant to pursue studies. To allow claimant to receive benefits while pursuing a difficult and demanding course would be contrary to jurisprudence and an error in law.

Decision 11679A Full Text of Decision 11679A

Error of law to say that availability evenings and weekends is not what Act requires. While there is presumption that students not available, not sufficient to say this; must examine facts of case.

Decision 10955 Full Text of Decision 10955

For the past 2 years claimant worked full-time at night and attended a full-time course during the day. The Board made an error in law. We have here the type of case that proves the exception to the general rule that attendance at courses precludes availability.