Summary of Issue

Decision 75598 Full Text of Decision 75598

The claimant did not meet the criteria to be considered a Long Tenured Worker and therefore was not eligible to receive additional weeks of benefits pursuant to subsection 12(2.1) of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act). The claimant requested a reconsideration, to have the file date pushed forward in time to qualify for LTW, again, this was denied. The claimant then requested the file to be cancelled. The jurisprudence clearly provides that when a benefit period has been established and benefits have already been paid, the Commission cannot cancel the benefit period. The claimants appeal is dismissed.

Decision 68519 Full Text of Decision 68519

A new benefit period could have been established on February 12, 2006 but the claimant only had 574 hours of insurable employment - he needed 595 hours. His request to cancel his renewal claim of Octobre 2005 in order to establish a new benefit period from October 16, 2005 was refused by the Commission but granted by the Board of Referees. The claimant would only have needed 525 hours of insurable employment to establish a benefit period in October. "The Commission could not know how a change in the unemployment rate would affect the determination of the number of insurable hours required by the claimant to qualify for benefits or the number of benefit weeks to which a person is entitled."

Decision 66348 Full Text of Decision 66348

The Board made an error. It was not possible to cancel the benefits paid for the weeks from April 24 to May 21, 2005 retroactively, thereby creating an overpayment, and then establish an initial benefit period effective August 21, 2005. The Commission had also looked at the possibility of terminating the first benefit period and establishing a new one, but this was not possible, because the claimant had to have accumulated 600 hours of insurable employment since March 18, 2005, and since she did not return to work until May 24, 2005, she had accumulated only 552 hours. She thus qualified for only 15 weeks of maternity benefits, followed by 17 weeks of parental benefits.

Decision 64484 Full Text of Decision 64484

The claimant requested that her initial benefit period be cancelled in order to claim maternity benefits. The claimant had received benefits during her initial benefit period. The Umpire found that, under subsection 10(6) of the Act, the claimant did not meet the requirements for her benefit period to be cancelled.

Decision 53440 Full Text of Decision 53440

Claimant asked that his benefit period be cancelled despite payment of one week of benefits, so that he could benefit from the new regulatory amendments. This would allow him to receive 34 weeks of benefits instead of 22 weeks. Claimant argued that he had not really started receiving benefits since, before requesting the cancellation, he had not cashed his first EI cheque. Argument dismissed. That he had not cashed his cheque does not change the application of the Act, which states "benefits (that) were paid or payable".

Decision 52798 Full Text of Decision 52798

Claimant was paid one week of benefits and asked to have her benefit period cancelled so as to take advantage of a change in the unemployment rate in the region. Would have been entitled to 35 weeks of benefit instead of 23 weeks. Request denied and decision upheld by the Umpire in light of provisions in the Act. Claimant received the benefits and accepted them.

Decision A-0558.95 Full Text of Decision A-0558.95

Initial benefit period established on 23-12-90 with 14 WIEs: one (1) week of benefits paid. Renewal on 05-05-91 for maternity. Claimant ineligible: insufficient WIEs (14 WIEs rather than the 20 WIEs required) accumulated during the qualifying period. Claimant requested cancellation of benefit period. Request refused: one (1) week paid. Appeals dismissed by the Umpire and the FCA.

Decision 21685 Full Text of Decision 21685

Applied for regular UI on 25-4-91 while pregnant. She then opted to work 5 more weeks to qualify for maternity UI. Tried in vain to speak to a CEIC agent in May. Ceased work in June. Regular claim processed and some monies paid in the meantime. Cannot qualify for maternity UI.

Decision 19743 Full Text of Decision 19743

The failure of the Commission to inform the claimant of the possibility of cancellation of a claim to the possible advantage of a claimant is not a ground for appeal in the absence of some other negligence. CUB 11014 referred to.

Decision 18482 Full Text of Decision 18482

UI paid for 4 weeks at $38. When the cheques were received is irrelevant as is the question of whether he ever cashed them. Once the benefit period was established and a benefit became payable, there can be no turning back even if he chose not to acceptthe payment.

Decision 16660 Full Text of Decision 16660

Benefit period established in 6-86. Claimant was paid one week and returned to work. Claim renewed in 9-86 and benefit period expires in 6-87. Benefit period not to be cancelled.

Decision 12991 Full Text of Decision 12991

Benefit period established 7-84; renewed 11-84; wishes to cancel period properly established and start anew in 11-84. Cancellation possible only where benefit not paid or payable. Benefit payable and paid 22-7 to 4-8-84. Commencement date not to be altered.

Decision A-0239.85 Full Text of Decision A-0239.85

Received 3 weeks of benefit after the waiting period. Subsequently entitled to provincial maternity allowances. States that they were payable earlier and applies for the cancellation of the benefit period. Application denied by Umpire. Decision upheld by FC.

Decision A-0133.76 Full Text of Decision A-0133.76

Ss. 43(2) does not allow the cancellation of a benefit period when weeks of a disqualification have been served. The Board of Referees did not err in law in dismissing the claimant’s allegation, ruling that she was not available and, consequently, disentitled during these weeks.