| 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.
