Summary of Issue: Sickness

Decision A-0525.95 Full Text of Decision A-0525.95

Claimant was referred to a course. On 6-03-92, the claimant left the course for five weeks because of sickness. Claimant was ineligible to receive sick benefits, and the authorization to take the course was withdrawn retroactively to 6-03-92. Nevertheless, the claimant returned to the course and completed it successfully. The FCA referred the matter back to the Umpire for determination as to whether the claimant was still referred despite his absence. **NOTE: The FCA identified several ambiguities, and noted that there was a lack of consensus regarding the nature of the Commission’s decision.

Decision 14927 Full Text of Decision 14927

Took the course on demand of CEIC, fell sick from 28-7 to 7-8 and then resumed; illness confirmed and it did not put an end to the course. It cannot be said that he "did not follow" the course, in accordance with 26(1). I agree with CUB-6970.

Decision 12554A Full Text of Decision 12554A

The course commenced 1-10-84 and was to end 8-3-85. Claimant injured 28-1 and convalesced until 8-3. The Act is clear. If the claimant, during an extended benefit period, is ill, he cannot be available for work and is thus not entitled to benefits.

Decision 12740 Full Text of Decision 12740

Disentitled as not available for 10 days while in hospital or convalescing. It seems contrary to the intent that one be not entitled to UI for being not available while ill during the course, benefits being paid under 26(1) not for seeking work but for attending the course. Wording of 26(1) examined. One can be said to be attending a course and still be absent due to illness. This is recognized by CEIC's own policy relating to excused absences. There is a need to identify claimants who have become so ill as to have effectively abandoned the course.