| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
It must be recognized at the outset that the onus is on CEIC to prove everything required under subsection 31(1), including the work stopage.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
In view of the insured person there was no stoppage, as the boats were diverted to other ports. Stoppage means stoppage of normal activity in the business where the insured person is employed, in this case the port of Quebec City. The question is: was there a work stoppage in Quebec city, not whether the work continued elsewhere.
First it must be recognized that it is up to CEIC to prove all parts of section 31(1), including the work stoppage.
