| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
Summary:
The claimant didn’t agree with the fact that he was not entitled to EI as he had failed to show his availability. The BOR declared that the availability is a question of fact, which should normally be disposed of on the basis of an assessment of the evidence. In this case, in view of the claimant's admission that he is looking only for a job that would keep him busy no more than two days a week during the week, it is obvious that the claimant is setting personal requirements that are unduly limiting his opportunities for work. The evidence in this case is no way satisfies the three tests established by the case law to assess availability: a sincere desire to return to the labour market; efforts to find work; and remaining free of personal requirements that could limit the opportunities for work. For these reasons, the Umpire find that the BOR did not err in fact or in law. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
