Summary of Issue: Duration

Decision 26374 Full Text of Decision 26374

Benefit period ended 11-1-92. Course started 13-1-92. Claimant argued that an information session held on 7-1-92 was an integral part of the course. Even if the session was compulsory, there was evidence from the learning institution itself that it was not an integral part of the course.

Decision 25059 Full Text of Decision 25059

It is common ground that claimant's request for approval under s. 26 was granted by an officer of the Commission. However, this decision was reversed on review, one day after she had already started her course. Ss. 26(8) quoted. Since no discretion is allowed in the Act, I am bound by the legislation.

Decision 24961 Full Text of Decision 24961

Referred course in 3 parts, all to be considered continuous despite a six-week interval, said the Board. Referral misinterpreted. It was limited to the Basic part. No mention of continuity is made. It could have been different if it had only mentioned the course name without reference to parts.

Decision 24177 Full Text of Decision 24177

Claimant referred to a course by the Commission and was advised that since he had opted to do the coop method, a break in training between the first and second session would affect his UI benefit rate because the break was to be longer than 8 weeks.

Decision 20340 Full Text of Decision 20340

Being on a course approved from 18-1-88 to 10-1-89 but not as of 11-1-89 because of failures. Question is whether CEIC had the right to draw up administrative regulations to monitor the result of the courses. It seems to me that the answer is yes, otherwise it could lead to abuse.

Decision 17986 Full Text of Decision 17986

He left his work on 20-1 to take a course only to find that he had not been formally directed to it yet and this was done 20-2. Certainly from 20-1 to 20-2 he must be considered as having done so of his own volition. No indication that the direction hadretroactive effect.

Decision 16995 Full Text of Decision 16995

Took course as fee-payer from 31-8 to 16-10-87 and referred afterwards. Under policy, one pays tuition fee and makes some general statement of availability. Course approved. Absurd to disentitle for very same course while fee-payer due to lack of documentation.

Decision 14323 Full Text of Decision 14323

Refer to: A-1122.87

Decision A-1122.87 Full Text of Decision A-1122.87

Referred by CEIC to a course to last until 14-6-85. The Board held that the real date of course termination was 11-6-86 and allowed an extension of the benefit period up to that date. Decision overturned by Umpire. Application for review dismissed by FC.

Decision 14902 Full Text of Decision 14902

Referred to a course from 9-84 to 6-85 and a second one from 19-8-85 to 1-11-85 (11 weeks); continues the same course on his own initiative and declared ineligible Monday 4-11-85. Discretionary power of CEIC both because of the nature of the course and its duration.

Decision 11324 Full Text of Decision 11324

Refer to: A-0825.85

Decision A-0825.85 Full Text of Decision A-0825.85

Took courses from 21-11-83 to 22-6-84 and from 17-9-84 to 8-2-85. Benefit period terminated 6 weeks after 22-6-84. As per Umpire, the Board erred in finding that the course terminated in 6-84. The Umpire could not quash the Board's finding of fact.

Decision 12090 Full Text of Decision 12090

Referred to a course which was to be completed on 13-5. Failed to meet the course requirements by that date and continues on his own. Availability not shown subsequent to 13-5.

Decision 11790 Full Text of Decision 11790

The legal question is whether 26(1) permits the Commission to withdraw its initial approval. The factual aspect is whether the actual referral contained a commitment that the approval was for a fixed period of time or to a conclusion. Referral document necessary. S.26(1) does not prevent from bringing the referral to a halt at some time. Neither does it contain a guarantee that a claimant once referred carry it through to conclusion.

Decision 11726 Full Text of Decision 11726

Ss.26(1) makes no mention of the length of the course, and between fee-payers and others whose training places are purchased by the Commission. If in fact referred to the course, whatever be its length and whether or not he paid his own tuition, the section applies. Claimant was referred to a 52-week computer course. Several months after commencement, the course was cancelled and replaced by one of 64 weeks. S.26 was not applied after 52 weeks. Decision quashed. The length is inconsequential under s.26.