Summary of Issue

Decision 67391 Full Text of Decision 67391

The main argument concerns the cost or accessibility of the treatment, not the availability of treatments in the claimant's area of residence (Montreal). The Umpire refused to intervene by broadening the scope of the exemptions provided in Regulation 55(1)(a) and also refused to accept that "availability" within the meaning of that section could be interpreted as "accessibility". Given that the subsidiary issues of "readily or immediately,"and the accreditation of the foreign institution were not dealt with, the Umpire refrained himself from commenting on those prerequisites.

Decision 50001 Full Text of Decision 50001

Claimant became ill while in Hungary. Commission refused to pay sickness benefits because treatment was available in Canada. Umpire allowed claimant's appeal in light of Reg. 55(1)(a) which stipulates that benefits can be paid when the medical treatment is not available in the claimant's area of residence in Canada. Claimant works in Iqaluit (NWT) and treatment not available in that area. The Commission is bound by the wording of Reg. 55(1)(a). The Commission did not pursue an appeal at the FCA.

Decision 37352 Full Text of Decision 37352

Although it may be argued that the claimant by residing in a warm climate such as Panama was pursuing a medical treatment which is at least during the winter months not available in Canada, this treatment, did not occur in a hospital or similar institution. Given that the claimant does not fall within any of the exceptions to the general prohibition found in s.54 of the Reg.

Decision 29598 Full Text of Decision 29598

Claimant paid sickness benefits decides to spend part of his convalescence in Florida. Undergoing medical treatment not available in Canada has not been proven. Also, the confinement has not taken place in a hospital or "similar institutions".

Decision 27660 Full Text of Decision 27660

Temporarily residing in California. I have no grounds for interfering with the Board's determination that the spa attended by the claimant met the requirements of ss. 54(1) and implicitly that treatment, primarily living in a hot, dry climate, was unavailable in Canada, at least in winter months.

Decision 26014 Full Text of Decision 26014

The key here is to determine whether treatment was available in Canada. I did not see any evidence to contradict that Canadian hospitals were unable to admit claimant without delay. All institutions had long waiting lists. I confirm the Board's decision that treatment was not available in Canada.

Decision 25002 Full Text of Decision 25002

While I have no authority to suggest a different legislative approach, it may be necessary to revisit these provisions in order to recognize that treatment is not available in circumstances of remoteness and the ability of a medical facility to treat patients within a reasonable period of time. Held by the Board that, although treatment is available in Canada, the ideal and appropriate treatment was only available to her in England. Decision overturned. Treatment was available in Canada. It is not within the provisions of s. 54 to have treatment elsewhere when it is available in Canada.