| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
Summary:
As per Umpire, once an antedate has been granted, the CEIC is not empowered to disentitle a claimant by reason of non-availability. This decision appears erroneous. Once an antedate has been granted, the CEIC must determine a claimant's eligibility.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability is to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
