| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
treatment not available in canada |
|
|
Summary:
The main argument concerns the cost or accessibility of the treatment, not the availability of treatments in the claimant's area of residence (Montreal). The Umpire refused to intervene by broadening the scope of the exemptions provided in Regulation 55(1)(a) and also refused to accept that "availability" within the meaning of that section could be interpreted as "accessibility". Given that the subsidiary issues of "readily or immediately,"and the accreditation of the foreign institution were not dealt with, the Umpire refrained himself from commenting on those prerequisites.
