Summary of Issue: Vs. Work Area

Decision 69529 Full Text of Decision 69529

Claimant was ordinarily resident in Norton NB because that was where he normally resided except for when he was away working with his father-in-law in another part of the province. The claimant had rented the house, had used that address for a number of personal things, such as income tax, driver's license, that's where his wife lived and that is where his phone was listed. There is no doubt that he lived in Salmon Creek for a considerable time working during the year, but at the end of the season, he returned home to Norton.

Decision 25476 Full Text of Decision 25476

Due to labour dispute in Kapuskasing, claimant went to London. He occupied his parents' vacant home (not rented but listed for sale). He then filed for UI. Returned to Kapuskasing some time later. Driver's licence and voters' list show Kapuskasing. Held that his residence was in London when filing.

Decision 23442 Full Text of Decision 23442

Employed in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, but resides on the Alberta side of Lloydminster. The Board considered the claimant earned his right through employment in Saskatchewan and he continued to look for employment in Saskatchewan. The Board was clearly in error.

Decision 22774 Full Text of Decision 22774

Claimant himself considered that he has been ordinarily resident at New Westminster. That is where he had his usual or settled abode, the base from which he went off to work in coast logging operations and to which he returned when his employment ceased from time to time. The Act and the Regulations provide for the regional rate of unemployment for the region in which he was ordinarily resident to be applicable, not the rate for the region in which he was employed.

Decision 21968 Full Text of Decision 21968

The mere fact that one has some general intention to return one day to his native province does not prevent him from being ordinarily resident in a place where he has been making his living and appears to wish to continue making his living for the foreseeable future. Claimant argued that people from Newfoundland who go to the mainland for employment should always be considered as resident in Newfoundland because that is where they intend to return. Unfortunately the matter is not as simple as that.

Decision 14162 Full Text of Decision 14162

Worked in Richmond 24-6-86 to 30-8-86. Subsequent to layoff she went to live in Kamloops. Ordinarily resident in Richmond at time of layoff and she has 10 instead of 16 weeks. 10 would be sufficient in Kamloops.

Decision 12815 Full Text of Decision 12815

Worked in Calgary. Laid off 29-11. Made a claim. 13 weeks instead of 17 as required. Moved to N.S. 16-12 and made another claim. Ordinary place of residence for the purpose of s.20 is Calgary, not N.S.

Decision 09190 Full Text of Decision 09190

Clearly, the Board erred in law in finding that the location of claimant's employment determines the regional rate of unemployment applicable. The specific language of reg. 52 requires that the determining factor is the region in which he is ordinarily resident.

Decision 09074 Full Text of Decision 09074

Worked in Saskatchewan. Upon layoff, the company flew her back to N.B. While on UI, she drove to Saskatchewan to look for work for 5 months. Single and no family to go back to when a job ran out. Something other than residence is meant by ordinary residence. Her home is N.B.