| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Summary:
We are dealing with a legal issue within a factual context not contemplated by Parliament. Had it been demonstrated that this interpretation created a window of opportunity for those intending to pursue dubious claims, then it would be incumbent on this Court to reflect on such exigences.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
After losing his full-time job, claimant accepted part-time work which was still continuing when he filed his UI claim. Rate based on part-time job. ESHTON-ROSE distinguished. 2 employments held concurrently should be dealt with separately; only the employment lost should be used in calculating benefits.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Summary:
The underlying purpose of the Act is to provide a claimant with financial support until such time as she or he is able to find comparable employment. It is my understanding that it is not the purpose of the Act to discourage claimants from seeking part-time work which is precisely the case before us.
