Summary Search Results...


Decision 77053 Full Text of Decision 77053

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

The claimant applied for benefits on July 23, 2010. During his qualifying period, he accumulated only 431 employment insurable hours. At the time of his application,there was an unemployment rate of 11% in his region. Prior to July, 2010, the claimant benefited from an extended benefit period which was interrupted by a working period between November 2009 and January 26, 2010. In January, he renewed his existing claim and received benefit until July. At the time of the claimant's lay off in January 2010, the unemployment rate in his region was 14.1% and the required number of insurable hours to qualify for benefits was 420. If the claimant had been eligible to establish a new claim in January, he would have been eligible for benefits. However, by the time where is prior benefit period expired, the new rate of unemployment of 11% required 525 hours to qualify for benefits. The BOR noted that it did not have any discretion in this matter. The law must be applied as it stands. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts number of hours required BPNE

Decision A-0117.97 Full Text of Decision A-0117.97

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

Benefit period effective 7-10-90. July 93 claimant received a payment in settlement of his wrongful dismissal. The allocation prevented claimant from establishing an interruption of earnings until 19-11-90 which coincided with the coming into force of Bill C-21, reducing entitlement from 50 to 41 weeks of benefits. Umpire ruled that the amending legislation is not applicable to the claimant's claim, he is entitled to the period of benefits according to the law which existed at the date of his application on 7-10-90. FCA focused on the use of the word "established" and not "commenced" in the transitional provision, there is no doubt that there had been a benefit period "established" in favour of the claimant effective 7-10-90 before the provisions determining its length were repealed. FCA maintained Umpire's decision.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods duration

Decision 42015 Full Text of Decision 42015

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

BOR erred in law in deciding that a benefit period started on a Wednesday since this is contrary to the EI Act which states that a benefit period starts on a Sunday.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of provision

Decision A-1102.92 Full Text of Decision A-1102.92

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

Last day worked 15-11-90 (Thursday). New legislation in effect 18-11. Claim filed 20-11. Number of insured weeks: 20 including last week worked. Cannot benefit of former legislation as he would not qualify with 19 weeks. Can only qualify from 18-11 when new legislation applies. No change by FC.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees rules of construction effective date of proviso

Decision 21248 Full Text of Decision 21248

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

Refer to: A-1102.92

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees rules of construction effective date of proviso

Decision 15637 Full Text of Decision 15637

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

The beginning was established as of 2-10-83, in accordance with the CEIC circular, even though the insured person filed his application only on 11-10-83 and despite the clear provisions of 9(1)(b). Complications followed regarding calculation of the rate of benefit. The beginning was moved back to 9-10-83.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim factual cases rate of benefit

Decision 12553 Full Text of Decision 12553

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date
Summary:

Benefit period starts either week of interruption of earnings or week of claim. Once established, starting date cannot be adjusted to entitle claimant to maximum payable. CEIC not required to inform claimant of most advantageous date.


Decision 74180 Full Text of Decision 74180

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts benefit periods commencement date pilot projects
Summary:

The issue in the present appeal is whether or not the claimant qualifies as a "Long-Tenured Worker". The Commission held that the claimant did not meet the criteria set out in the subsection 77.91 of the Employment Insurance Regulations since her benefit period started on September 21, 2008, and not between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010. The appeal by the claimant before the Umpire is dismissed.

Date modified: