Decision A-1692.92

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-1692.92 Michael Nadia  Federal  French 1994-03-23
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Dismissed Unanimous  No N/A  22116 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts  disqualification and disentitlement 

Summary:

Two job refusals resulting in 2 disqualifications and a disentitlement. According to the Umpire, a disqualification and a disentitlement cannot be imposed for the same reasons. Error of law, the Court held. The disqualification and the disentitlement refer to different facts and distinct schemes. It is possible that the claimant's gesture, leading to the disqualification (s. 27), reveals a behaviour which equally warrants a notice of disentitlement (s. 14). For example, 2 job refusals would tend to indicate that a claimant is actually not available.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work  applicability  relation with refusal of work 

Summary:

The actions of a claimant on which his disqualification is based (sect. 27) can also indicate behaviour that justifies disentitlement of benefits (sect. 14). For example, refusing employment twice can indicate that a claimant is in fact not available for work. Two refusals of employment leading to two statements of disqualification and one disentitlement. According to the umpire, disqualification and disentitlement cannot be imposed for the same reasons. Error in law, according to the Court. Disqualification and disentitlement relate to different realities and distinct regimes.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts  disqualification  multiple 

Summary:

Two refusals of employment leading to two statements of disqualification and one disentitlement. According to the umpire, disqualification and disentitlement cannot be imposed for the same reasons. Error in law, according to the Court. Disqualification and disentitlement relate to different realities and distinct regimes.


Date modified: