Summary of Issue: Decision Maintained

Decision 29495 Full Text of Decision 29495

The Board allows the claimant's appeal on the basis of an error as to the effective date of the disqualification. According to the Umpire, the claimant did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the clerical error.

Decision A0021.95 Full Text of Decision A0021.95

In light of the claimant's statement, we are convinced that the claimant suffered no prejudice from the fact that the notice sent by the Commission referred to section 31 of the Regulation rather than section 30.

Decision 26229 Full Text of Decision 26229

Refer to: A-0021.95

Decision 20207 Full Text of Decision 20207

Refer to: A-0853.91

Decision A-0853.91 Full Text of Decision A-0853.91

We all agree that the claimant was not prejudiced by reason of the fact that the CEIC's notice referred to para. 43(1)(a) instead of 43(1)(b). It is clear that he was fully aware of the grounds invoked to justify the denial of benefit. The Umpire did not err by upholding the Board's decision.

Decision 22205 Full Text of Decision 22205

James Bay worker on three-weeks unpaid leave because of long work hours; informed afterwards that he is laid off. Point in dispute: three-week antidating. Antidating granted by the judge; however it is deemed that he is not unemployed; para. 10(4) and Reg. 37(3).

Decision 20606 Full Text of Decision 20606

Reference to ss. 44(1) replaced by 42(4) after claimant's appeal. HAMILTON and VON FINDENIGG referred to. I think it is illogical to hold against the CEIC what is a rather minor error, as it had no obligation to do so. Claimant had fully understood the content of the notice.

Decision 19006 Full Text of Decision 19006

Not unemployed as from 24-10-89 according to the notice; upheld by the Board. A typing error: it was 24-10-88. VON FINDENIGG and CUB-14631 relied on by the insured person. They concerned a second notice issued by CEIC, whereas in this case we are dealing with a typing error.

Decision 16233 Full Text of Decision 16233

Refer to: A-0128.89

Decision A-0128.89 Full Text of Decision A-0128.89

Disentitled from 7-4 to 28-9 by reason of his farming activities under ss. 43(3) dealing with off-season from 1-10 to 31-3. Held by Umpire that claimant was well aware of the ground for disentitlement; no prejudice. Upheld by FC without comment.

Decision 17691 Full Text of Decision 17691

The notice speaks of wages where as it is in fact vacation pay. The insured person sites HAMILTON. It is clear that the effect of Regs 57 and 58 are the same, whether the issue is one of wages or vacation. As the SC stated, this would have form prevail over substance.

Decision 16470 Full Text of Decision 16470

Commission relied on reg. 58(3) to prorate earnings and submits this was incorrectly done and reg. 58(4) is to be used. Same situation as in CUB 12601. The contract provided for wages to be paid to claimant without performing continuous services. The allocation was correct.

Decision A-0504.88 Full Text of Decision A-0504.88

Alleges that the question to decide was not whether she had been available but whether the reason given in support of non-availability was justified. As per Umpire, issue not limited to this reason. She had to prove the larger issue of availability. Upheld by FC.

Decision 14914 Full Text of Decision 14914

Refer to: A-0504.88

Decision 12601 Full Text of Decision 12601

University teacher who did not teach during the last 3 weeks of his contract ending 30-4. Held by Board that salary was to be allocated under reg. 58(3) to 30-4. The Board reached the right decision but not for the good reasons. Reg. 58(4) applies.

Decision 11882 Full Text of Decision 11882

The Board found that there was misconduct. It would be harsh to suggest there was misconduct. Rather there was a complete misunderstanding with employer and she left without just cause. I am not disturbing the finding of the Board and the one-week disqualification.

Decision 11564 Full Text of Decision 11564

Disentitled as not available during an additional 6-week leave of absence requested of employer following childbirth. This is the wrong issue. Held to be not unemployed. If I am in error, she should be disqualified 6 weeks for quitting. Proper result reached in the end for the wrong reasons.