Decision 42165
Full Text of Decision 42165
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Although the claimant showed that he had a history of working and going to school, he was not granted any reasonable period of time, and he was refused benefits. According to the Umpire, BOR erred in law in not taking this situation into account by granting a reasonable period of three months, given his undisputed history of working and going to school and the claimant's availability to work part-time while attending school 15 to 18 hours a week.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
courses |
after reasonable period of time |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Decision A-0442.96
Full Text of Decision A-0442.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 15799
Full Text of Decision 15799
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1049.88
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision A-1049.88
Full Text of Decision A-1049.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 16915
Full Text of Decision 16915
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Disentitled after 4 months: too restrictive. She was not given any warning. When she got a notice of disentitlement, she broadened her availability. She should have been given a 4-week period to remove restrictions. Error in law in not considering absence of warning.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 15389
Full Text of Decision 15389
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Left his job for which he was paid $300 a week and then asked for $500. I agree with that principle (that the insured person must be warned when his or her demands are too high in accordance with CUB-12842 and 14708). No time period was given. An error in law. Entitled to 8 weeks.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
availability for work |
restrictions |
wages or salary |
|
availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 14823
Full Text of Decision 14823
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Claimant had long been employed on a temporary contract basis. Last contract completed 30-6. Available as teacher or office worker. Chances of employment practically nil. Error of law. Well-settled law that some time must be allowed. Claimant re-employed 2-9.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 14576
Full Text of Decision 14576
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Whether one is available and seeking employment is a question of mixed law and fact. The construction of the word "available" is a matter of law; its application to the particular circumstances is a matter of fact.
The Board believed that the legal status of availability requires that the job search be conducted in some way other than by telephone. This is incorrect. No such requirement exists. Error in law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
availability for work |
job search |
how to search |
|
board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
availability for work |
job search |
number of contacts |
|
Decision 13736
Full Text of Decision 13736
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Umpires in CUBs 3281, 8574 and 8741 have ruled that a claimant is not available when his priority is to return to the former employer. That is sound law, not an error in law. He had no guarantee that he would be rehired.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
restrictions |
specific employer |
|
Decision 12606
Full Text of Decision 12606
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Job search list ignored by Board simply because it was incomplete as to dates, persons contacted and addresses. Error in law. No such requirement in legislation. The Board should have made its own decision as to whether claimant's availability was proven.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
Decision A-1294.83
Full Text of Decision A-1294.83
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Board of referees could not conclude, without erring in law, that the claimant was entitled to benefit solely because she had asked to be reinstated in her employment before the end of the leave and had found a babysitter.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
Decision A-0613.81
Full Text of Decision A-0613.81
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Whether a person who is able to work only from 4:00 p.m. because she is unable to find a babysitter, should be considered available because she has made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter is at least partly a question of law. [p.12]
The Umpire erred in law when he concluded that, notwithstanding claimant's restrictions as to hours, she was available because she had made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter. [p.14]
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|