Summary of Issue: Discrimination

Decision A-0372.96 Full Text of Decision A-0372.96

FCA found that the Commission’s decision as to whether or not to refer a claimant to a course covered by ss. 26(1) of the Act cannot be appealed under ss. 26(8). Consequently, neither the BOR, the Umpire, nor this Court has the jurisdiction to hear a challenge of the Commission’s decision on the grounds that the claimant was a victim of discrimination within the meaning of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He should have applied to another forum.

Decision 20309A Full Text of Decision 20309A

CEIC explained it had divided the Greater Montreal region in different administrative sub-regions; in the sub-regions where there was a demand for police officers, the insured women were steered towards the course; the others were not. Discretionary powers exercised judicially.

Decision 20309 Full Text of Decision 20309

Case referred back to the Board for consideration as to whether the Commission exercised its discretionary powers judicially, as required in CHARTIER. Students at the Institut de police de Nicolet (Quebec). They all came from the same area. Some were referred, others not.

Decision 20206 Full Text of Decision 20206

The claimant also argued that other students in his class were receiving benefits while in attendance at the course. Complaints of this nature, no matter how sincere, cannot be taken into account by a Board or an Umpire. The other cases may differ in important details.

Decision 17390A Full Text of Decision 17390A

Refusal by the Commission to refer N.S. residents to a police officer course while residents from adjacent provinces were so referred did not violate s.7 of the Charter. A pure economic right is outside the scope of protection under s.7. In my view, the administration of a national program in consultation with provincial officials in a manner that takes account of differing provincial needs does not result in breach of ss.15(1) of the Charter.

Decision 17462 Full Text of Decision 17462

The fact that claimant does not enjoy equal benefit of the law when compared with his classmates from other provinces and with black students from the same province does not offend s.6 and 15 of the Charter.

Decision 13814A Full Text of Decision 13814A

It is submitted that claimant's disentitlement amounts to discrimination under s.15 of Charter. I do not agree. He is being treated under the law in the same way as any other claimant who is attending a full-time course to which he has not been referred.

Decision 14658A Full Text of Decision 14658A

Charter argument alluded to. Other claimants were referred. Neither an Umpire nor a Board may exercise the discretion found in 26(1). Although the course was previously approved, the Commission has apparently changed its policy.

Decision 17208 Full Text of Decision 17208

Charter argument: classmate, also an employed nurse, was referred to the same course. Classmate received UI not as a result of a correct interpretation of the law but as a result of an error made by Commission personnel. Claimant's appeal dismissed.

Decision 16920 Full Text of Decision 16920

The argument that there was discrimination according to the Charter of Rights since 5 members of a visible minority were sent on a course and that proportionally more Anglophones than Francophones were sent, was not accepted.

Decision 13997A Full Text of Decision 13997A

The Umpire requested information on alleged unequal treatment of claimants attending same course. Differences in treatment fully explained by the Commission and accepted by the Umpire. None of the claimants were referred but a few succeeded in proving their availability.

Decision 13997 Full Text of Decision 13997

What is most troublesome: the Commission is not applying the law to others in the same fashion and fee-payers are excused from a job search. This category has no statutory sanction and leads to arbitrary application of the law. Charter examined. Judgment reserved.

Decision 12251 Full Text of Decision 12251

S.15 of the Charter at issue. The claimant has not been denied any equality before and under the law, even though there is a clear distinction effected by the Commission between him and those who receive benefits while pursuing a course blessed by the Commission. [p. 5]

Decision 11979 Full Text of Decision 11979

He feels that it is discriminatory that he was not able to claim benefits when other people taking the course were getting them. Very serious charge of political interference. Two wrongs do not make a right and improper influence does not strengthen hisclaim.

Decision 10644 Full Text of Decision 10644

Claimant says that 2 fellow students at the same college collected UI for 2 years while he was only entitled to 44 weeks. Those 2 cases are not before me. If the Commission decided that they should be referred for 2 years, I have no right to question this decision.