Summary of Issue: Acquired Rights

Decision A-1191.88 Full Text of Decision A-1191.88

It is now well established that a claimant has no vested right that the rules under which benefits will be paid to him on a weekly basis will remain fixed and immutable after the moment he makes his claim. Any change in those rules will be applicable to him.

Decision A-0778.88 Full Text of Decision A-0778.88

Claimant says he would have acted otherwise had he been aware that the law would be amended. All have to respect the fact that Parliament can change the law from time to time in the exercise of its constitutional powers, as per Umpire. Implicitly concurred in by FC.

Decision 15446 Full Text of Decision 15446

Refer to: A-0778.88

Decision 13068 Full Text of Decision 13068

Even though the benefit period commenced prior to 31-3-85, whether monies subsequently received are earnings under reg. 57 must be determined with reference to the wording of that regulation at the time that he actually claimed his benefits, i.e. on a bi-weekly basis.

Decision A-0178.86 Full Text of Decision A-0178.86

The establishement of a benefit period does not create a right to receive benefits. Other conditions must be met. The legislative amendments that occur during the benefit period must be taken into account. [leave to appeal denied by SC]

Decision A-0235.81 Full Text of Decision A-0235.81

Claimant engaged in uninsurable employment at time when there was provision treating it as insurable employment for the purposes of eligibility for maternity benefits. Claim made after provision repealed. No vested right.

Decision A-0116.79 Full Text of Decision A-0116.79

Insured accumulated 8 insurable weeks ending on Friday, 2-12. Act amended as of Sunday, 4-12: 10 weeks required instead of 8. Claim for benefit made on 5-12. No vested right to establish a benefit period before 4-12.

Decision A-0006.80 Full Text of Decision A-0006.80

Because of strike, insured lost part-time job while he was claimant. Only vested rights: to claim benefits for a certain number of weeks. Entitlement is not a vested right because of 40(1). Case dismissed by FC without comment.