Availability For Work



Awaiting RecallUmipre Decision

CUB 21239Umipre Decision - A person is entitled to wait for a recall for a reasonable period of time. However, after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, he or she must begin to seek employment elsewhere. Also, a claimant on temporary lay-off awaiting imminent recall need not prove an active job search , where the best chance for employment is the recall. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ludwig A.Ernst
Date: 1992

CUB 37351Umipre Decision - The claimant was a law student who was guaranteed employment with a law firm upon completion of the Bar admission course. The claimant was disqualified as the Commission found he was not available for work. The umpire found that the claimant was entitled to partial benefits as he was entitled for a few weeks while awaiting an impending recall. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Eugene Prpic
Date: 1997

CUB 67674Umipre Decision - The Commission found that the claimant did not show that he was available for work, when he did not conduct any job searches from December 4, 2005 to February 17, 2006, although there were opportunities available in his field of expertise. In this case, the claimant indicated that he was waiting to be called back to work by his union. Commission submitted a list of jobs available in the claimant's field of work. Most if not all jobs listed in the documents, required either some high school, a high school diploma, or a vocational diploma in welding. The claimant only completed grade 8. The claimant also noted that his union had the monopoly over his field of work and that every employer had to go through the union to hire a welder. He therefore put his name on the call-back list, and the union called the workers on a first registered, first called basis. The Umpire stated that a claimant who reasonably expects to be called back to work can be excused from the obligation to show that he or she was actively looking for employment, at least for a reasonable period of time; the Board of Referees' decision contained no errors of fact or of law. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

BasicUmipre Decision

CUB 52024Umipre Decision -In regards to the availability, the claimant stated that she handed out resumes and was physically looking for work and upgrading her skills so she could make herself more employable, these factors are consistent with availability. As well the claimant only assists her mother at the farm about one hour every morning and one hour at night, this would not affect her availability during a normal work day. In order for the Board and Commission to find that the claimant was unavailable for work, they would have to prove that she was not reasonably available and that she was occupied during the working hours of the day. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Charlotte Sayeau
Date: 2001

CUB 52093Umipre Decision -The claimant appeals the decision from the Board dismissing his appeal that he was not available for work and that he made 19 false and misleading statements that resulted in a penalty. The claimant was interviewed by the Commission about his self employment. In the interview the claimant stated that he started to plan for his business 7 months earlier and that he hadn't looked for employment since he filed his EI claim. The Commission never asked the claimant for proof of his job search even though the claimant's counsel submitted a list of job contacts that he contacted over the 7 months, even some that were contacted after he opened his business. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Richard Chan
Date: 2001

CUB 52520Umipre Decision - The claimant applied for benefits indicating that he lost his employment because he was a casual worker, working 10 months and off for two. A claim was established for July 2, 2000 and he was expected to be recalled on September 29, 2000. The Commission imposed a disentitlement because the claimant had not proven his availability and had not done satisfactory job searches. The facts that both the Commission and the Board overlooked was that the between when the claimant became unemployed and his recall he was studying for his power engineering exam, he hoped this exam would give him a permanent position with his employer. There was a delay in the recall but the claimant was eventually recalled back to work. In this case, the claimant did expect a recall and used his off time to assure that he could obtain full time employment by taking his power engineering test. The claimant was right in taking that approach. The claimant did not fail to show his availability. In a number of decisions the Umpires involved decided that a claimant on temporary lay off awaiting recall should not be immediately disentitled on the grounds of not seeking other employment, see CUB 23283Umipre Decision and Carpentier ( A-474-97) Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of CanadaUmipre Decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jared Sasek
Date: 2001

CUB 71623Umipre Decision - The Commission was of the position that the claimant was not available for work because of childcare responsibilities and limiting herself to the nursing sector despite not having the necessary qualifications. Due to moving to another province to accompany her spouse, the claimant had to obtain new nursing certification. As well, the claimant was having difficulties obtaining childcare. Although the claimant was available for work, getting the new nursing certification would take six to eight weeks. The Board had found that under the circumstances, the claimant acted as a reasonable person and satisfied the requirements under the act of showing availability. She had worked right up until the point that she moved to accompany her husband, the only thing preventing her from obtaining a position was the certification. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Benefit of the DoubtUmipre Decision

CUB 56313Umipre Decision - The claimant was the daughter of the president of the company and her mother was the major shareholder. While she was employed at the business she was employed as the Office Manager. After she was laid off she admits that she would go down to the office and spend time with the other fellow laid off shareholders. She told the Board that she occasionally helped out at the office with a maximum of an hour a week. The Board found that the claimant was not a credible witness. They stated that her oral evidence was not reliable and sometimes contradicted. The Board found that her statement of work " for only an hour" wasn't credible due to contradictory statements from other shareholders. Throughout this time there is evidence that the claimant was actively searching for a job. Justice Riche states:

" It is my view that the Board of Referees should have given the benefit of the doubt to this claimant and not lumped her in with the others...in this case the evidence does not point to this claimant spending considerable time at her business and it also shows that she made a reasonable job search during the time of layoff."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Katherine Klassen
Date: 2002

Failure to Prove UnemploymentUmipre Decision

CUB 59766Umipre Decision - The evidence that was before the Board was that the claimant was enrolled in university and was completing her requirements for her BA in Social Work. When the claimant appeared before the Board, she stated that most of her field work was in the evenings and weekends and that for that reason she considered herself available for work. She also pointed out that she was not attending courses and that she would only be available for part time work. The Board found that obtaining work was a main priority for the claimant and the times that she works in field, revolves around her work schedule. The Board found that the hours the claimant worked varied from week to week, as did her availability. They also found that claimant was not working a full week in accordance with section 11(a) of the Act. They further found that the claimant had proven a willingness to work and had not limited her chances of obtaining employment. The claimant has proven her availability under section 18(a) of the Act as being available from 8:00am to 8:00pm. In most cases, availability is sufficiently shown if it is proven to be in the 9:00 to 5:00 time period of the working day. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 77392Umipre Decision - The claimant began working for his brother. The business did not make a profit, and he did not receive earnings. He was informed he could not receive benefits as he was considered employed. This resulted in an overpayment of $4,350. The claimant had been in therapy and his caseworker suggested that he should keep himself occupied, which is why he was helping his brother. The claimant was volunteering, it was only once the commission stopped paying him that he started being paid $300/week. The Board had determined that he was unemployed. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

Failure to Show Intention to Seek EmploymentUmipre Decision

CUB 60534Umipre Decision - On his application for benefits, the claimant stated that he was ready and willing to work, but according to an interview he had with a Commission agent, he was having a hard time finding work because of his age, 63. The claimant had indicated that " he called all employers listed and either spoke to someone or left a message for a call back and that where he listed " machine" or " message" he had not spoken to anyone. For more than 12 of the contacts, the claimant had given the name or position of the person he talked to or left a message for. On only 12 of the contacts is it indicated " message" or " machine" . Although no dates are stated, there is not much vagueness, there is a business name, a telephone number and, in most cases, names of persons are stated. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Magdy Conyd
Date: 2004

CUB 72640Umipre Decision - The claimants father passed away in Sierra Leone, her native country. Being a Muslim he was buried on the same day. The claimant went to Sierra Leone to be with her family. She had been informed of possible employment opportunities in Sierra Leone and while she was there attended two interviews and met with a company that had previously employed her. The Commission raised the issue as to whether or not the interviews the claimant attended were bona fide job interviews or not. The Umpire concluded that the Board’s decision was not reasonable. The appeal was allowed
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

CUB 72689Umipre Decision - The claimant applied for employment insurance benefits on October 5, 2007 and an initial claim was established. The Commission determined that the claimant had not established his availability for work. The Umpire found that the Board made several errors in law in arriving at its conclusion in regards to the test for availability. Particularly as it comes to work outside of the field they had trained for and the issues with accepting temporary work. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

CUB 73157Umipre Decision - The claimant had established a claim for benefits. The Commission later determined that the claimant was not available for work as she had done only one job search even after being told that she had to look for employment and keep a list of her job searches. The Commission imposed an indefinite disentitlement. Their decision resulted in overpayment for the claimant and a denial of sick benefits. The Commission had not given the claimant warning that she had to expand her job search. The appeal was allowed to the extent of cancelling the disentitlement.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

Incompatible Situations - Family ObligationsUmipre Decision

CUB 57793Umipre Decision- The claimant decided to quit her job after her husband had started a job in another town. Her spouse was finding a place to live and starting his new job while she was looking after their child. Both her and her child were to move to the new city once a house had been located. The Commission stated that since she was taking care of the child and made no child care arrangements she was not available to work nor entitled to benefits. The Umpire in this case agreed with the Board quoted as saying:

" The Employment Insurance Act stipulates that a claimant is entitled to employment insurance benefits if she has to quit her job to accompany her spouse. That provision must include a period when the claimant has to make the necessary moving arrangements, including looking for a job and child care."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

Information Session/DisentitlementUmipre Decision

CUB 56031Umipre Decision - The claimant is appealing the decision that he is disentitled to benefits because he did not attend an interview scheduled for May 15, 2002. The claimant was consistent in stating that he never received the letter telling him about the information session, this is a fact that is impossible for the Commission to disprove. It is clearly the intention of the Parliament that a disentitlement under section 50 is not to remain in effect indefinitely but only until the claimant fulfils or complies with a particular condition or requirement. In this case the Board erred in law and based their decision on erroneous fact finding without a regard for the material before it. The appeal is allowed and the disentitlement set aside. If the claimant has not used up his benefits and is still unemployed the Commission should set a date for another information session.
Appellant: Andrew Galbraith
Date: 2002

Job SearchUmipre Decision

CUB 66501Umipre Decision - The claimant reported he lost his employment due to a shortage of work. He indicated that he was seeking work as a cook and that he was ready, willing and able to work. He collected thirty-six weeks of benefits. He then applied for medical benefits, claiming that he had impingement to his nerve roots. He produced a medical note that stated he may not be able to work part-time or full-time as a chef. The Commission found that the note only indicated that he was unable to work as a chef and not that he was unable to work in any other suitable position. The Commission imposed a retroactive disentitlement, which resulted in an overpayment of $10,997.00. They determined that the claimant made a false statement on the application where he stated that he was ready and willing to work as a cook and imposed a penalty of $154.00 for the false statement. The Board of Referees found that the claimant has not proven that he was carrying out an active job search. They also found his evidence with respect to job search not credible. The Umpire found that the Board based its finding on an erroneous finding of fact, in determining that the job search list was not credible. The Board also ignored the language problems of the claimant, and relied heavily on a translation given by a sixteen-year old, the claimant's son, with a limited knowledge in Cantonese. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Simpson Wong
Date: 2006

CUB 70740Umipre Decision - The Commission failed in its duty to warn the claimant that she needed to expand her job search before imposing a disentitlement for not making a sufficient effort to find a job. The Umpire stated that case law is well established that the Commission must warn a claimant that she has to expend her job search before imposing a disentitlement based on inadequate searches (CUBs 15389Umipre Decision, 15680Umipre Decision, 19058Umipre Decision, and 51389Umipre Decision). The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 76852Umipre Decision - The claimant attempted to begin a new career as a writer. She spent a considerable amount of time on building her career while continuing to search for full time employment. The claimant was not working during the time she spent writing books, she was not earning money from the sales of these books. The Board had determined she was available for work. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

CUB 78127Umipre Decision /A-132-12 - The claimant was allowed benefits for a week while she was outside Canada. Originally the claimant said she went to the US to visit her son. She said before travelling to the US she arranged a meeting with the director of sales for the Phoenix Coyotes. The Board accepted the claimant’s evidence of a job interview although it was not referred to in her original statement to the Commission. The Umpire made it clear that there is no legal rule that original statements should carry more weight than evidence given before the Board. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellants: Commission
Date: 2011

MedicalUmipre Decision

CUB 50001Umipre Decision - The claimant applied for benefits after he became ill while outside Canada. The claimant was and still is receiving medical treatment in Hungary. The general rule under the legislation is that claimants who are not in Canada are not entitled to receive benefits. However, there is an exemption to this rule whereby a claimant who is outside of Canada receiving medical treatment not readily or immediately available in the claimant's area of residence in Canada qualifies to receive benefits. The treatment which the claimant is receiving in Hungary is not immediately available in his area of residence and therefore, the Umpire was satisfied that he falls within the exemption. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Zoltan Mate
Date: 2000

CUB 62002Umipre Decision -The question is whether or not the claimant's illness, serious depression, is proven by a medical certificate that was presented as evidence, and whether or not the claimant would otherwise be available for work is a question of fact. The Board had clearly outlined their reasons for allowing the claimant's appeal, their decision includes the facts that the claimant had given birth to her premature ill daughter and had become fragile and was required to be on medical rest. The fact that she was on medical rest meant that she was unable to return to work because her own health would not allow it. She even had to hire someone to look after her child because she was unable to. Her employer was still her employer and was willing to take her back after she was available again. The claimant can still return to her job when she recovers from her illness. According to the evidence, her boss was always willing to take her back. In Umpire Gobeil's opinion there are three factors for determining availability established in Faucher ( A-56-96)   Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of CanadaUmipre Decision, which cannot apply here because there exists a presumption in this case that the claimant, once recovered, will return to her job with her employer, who is expecting her back. There is nothing in the evidence that can rebut this presumption as to the claimant's availability to return to work if she were not ill. The Board did not go far enough in its reasoning concerning the claimant's availability if she were not ill. The presumption of the claimant's availability has met the requirements of section 18(b) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 69674Umipre Decision - The claimant indicated that she left her employment to care for her husband following his surgery. She also provided a medical certificate stating that she was unable to work due to depression and anxiety. In her conversation with the Commission agent, the claimant had indicated that she would not have to provide care for her husband as their son and daughter in law lived with them and could provide it. The Commission on appeal stated that although the claimant did leave her work to care for her husband initially and she stated she was not available for work, it was only later that she established a claim for sickness benefits. The Umpire found that the Board could conclude, based on the claimant's repeated statements regarding the availability of her son and daughter-in-law to care for her husband, that she would have been available for work had she not been ill. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

Out of the CountryUmipre Decision

CUB 7860Umipre Decision -The claimant had studied and worked as a professional dancer in Canada and in the United States. She applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was held to be entitled for a reasonable length of time to find work as a ballet dancer. She mailed her resumes to various companies and attended auditions in Canada and the U.S.. The Commission dis-entitled her for the periods she was out of the country. In my opinion the Board and also the Commission have given too narrow a meaning to the words " he is not in Canada" in Section 45(b) of the Act. I cannot think that they are intended to penalize a person in the position of the claimant who has been out of Canada for very short periods for the sole purpose of auditioning for work in the only occupation for which she has had any training or experience and to which she has been devoting herself for a good many years. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lorna L. McConnell
Date: 1982

CUB 71768Umipre Decision -Before the claimant had left the country, he stated that he had secured employment after a very long job search. The employment was to start in two weeks. During the two week period, the claimant decided to go on vacation because he thought continuing to look for a job for only two or three weeks was a futile exercise. As well, the claimant has stated he knew that he was not entitled to benefits during that period. By obtaining new employment, the claimant no longer had to prove his availability. The circumstances and evidence provided substantiate at least a significant amount of doubt that the claimant had the subjective knowledge to knowingly make false statements. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

Part-time EmploymentUmipre Decision

CUB 45825Umipre Decision -The issue at hand is whether or not the claimant was available for work. The claimant is employed by the Canadian National Railway, employed on a on-call basis. He had completed a 6 month training course that would allow him to perform duties as a railway freight conductor. He was also employed as on-call conductor for emergencies, this employment was designated as safety sensitive and requires that the claimant have at least 8 hours of rest before starting a shift. The Board concluded that the part time employment was career building and that it was unreasonable to expect him to be seeking other employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1999

Restrictions - Reasonable Period of TimeUmipre Decision

CUB 22834Umipre Decision - Availability for work while attending course - delay in disqualification after Commission's notice to broaden search - Section 14(a) Act. Claimant was not given prior warning that he may-be disqualified from benefits because his availability for work situation had changed. A 4 week extension after warning was given in order for claimant to alter his availability situation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Frederick Carter
Date: 1993

CUB 22889Umipre Decision - Reasonable delay to widen search prior to disentitlement principles of fairness and natural justice -Section 14(a) Act. Claimant was laid off due to a lack of work after which he enrolled in a course of full-time study. He was not willing to quit school for full-time work but was willing to work part-time during his study period. Thus, he was found not to be available for work and was disentitled to UI benefits. But it was also found that the claimant was not given sufficient notice that his benefits would be cut off prior to. Sufficient notice being 4 weeks. (CUB 15771Umipre Decision, 16823Umipre Decision, 20316Umipre Decision, 14701Umipre Decision). The appeal was allowed in part.
Appellant: Michel Comeau
Date: 1993

Restrictive Conditions - Refusal of Suitable EmploymentUmipre Decision

CUB 62562Umipre Decision - The claimant was laid off from his position as an assistant group leader with Sharp Plastics Manufacturing on August 31, 2001. Comptec International took over Sharp Plastics business and recalled the claimant for the graveyard shift on November 25, 2001. The claimant did not return to work because Comptec offered him a job at $10.63 an hour, while he had been making $11.44 an hour with Sharp. The Board erred in law when it failed to determine whether the employment that was offered was not suitable employment because it was in his usual occupation at a lower rate of earnings. The language of paragraph 27(2)(b) is plain and unambiguous. The claimant's situation fell clearly within the exception there created. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dennis Turiano
Date: 2004

Restrictions - Work PermitUmipre Decision

CUB 22207Umipre Decision - Availability under work permit - two months of benefits as per jurisprudence Section 14(a) Act. Foreign student with a restricted authorization working permit. The Umpire cited more recent jurisprudence that extended benefit entitlement, to two months from two weeks. Extenuating circumstances in this case are in that the claimant did not seek employment within the confines of the working permit, before being disentitled to benefits as she was already employed. However the restrictions of the permit forced her to quit. Her situation was involuntary due to the permit having been revoked. It was found then that two weeks was an unreasonable length of time for the claimant to secure employment. The Umpire describes the various case law as it applies to restriction of job search to past employment situation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Rachel Adeodu
Date: 1992

CUB 49652Umipre Decision - The claimant applied for benefits indicating a shortage of work as the reason for the loss of his employment. The Commission determined that the claimant had been working in Canada under a work permit that specified he was only allowed to work for the company he was previously employed for and, therefore the claimant was not available for work and therefore, did not qualify for benefits. The Umpire states that; " The claimant is a professional engineer who lost the employment he was entitled to under a restricted work permit. He is told that, notwithstanding the fact that he has paid his employment insurance premiums while he was working, he cannot qualify for employment benefits until he has in fact secured employment which would be a condition to obtaining a work permit. The Board of Referees erred in law in its reliance on section 18. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: James Casha
Date: 2000

CUB 73880Umipre Decision - The claimant was working in Canada under a Foreign Worker’s Permit. The claimant received a disentitlement from benefits because his work permit had expired. The claimant disputes the Commission’s decision, stating that he was already accepted by the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program (AINP) for a change of status and thus was eligible to continue working in Canada. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

Restrictions - Side BusinessUmipre Decision

CUB 30988AUmipre Decision-A-56-96 Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of CanadaUmipre Decision/A-57-96 Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of Canada - Two construction workers were denied on the grounds that they did not prove they were available for work. When they became unemployed they formed a small roofing business. The Federal Court found that because the claimants had done an extensive job search and were very interested in finding permanent employment. Their appeal was allowed.
Appellants: Michel Faucher, Denis Poirer
Date: 1997

School/TrainingUmipre Decision

CUB 22222Umipre Decision - Availability for Work - Section 14(a). The Umpire in this case states that the Commission failed to cite balanced jurisprudence in their decision. This was reversed based on evidence that demonstrated that the claimant was indeed available for work and would leave the course that he was attending if suitable employment became available (Defined in CUB 19728Umipre Decision). The appeal was allowed. .
Appellant: Ron Mazur .
Date: 1992

CUB 22820Umipre Decision - Section 14(a), 40(1) Act. The claimant had established a pattern of working while attending a full-time course of study even though that pattern did not appear in the course of his most recent employment. (CUB 21878Umipre Decision,13171Umipre Decision and 17934Umipre Decision) The appeal was allowed. .
Appellant: Robert MacPhee.
Date: 1993

CUB 25361Umipre Decision/A-577-94 Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of CanadaUmipre Decision - The appellant was laid off from his job and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. He advised an employee of the Commission that he was planning on attending a meat-cutting course and would be unable to seek employment during that period. The appellant was advised by an employee of the Commission that there would be " no problem" receiving benefits. The claimant completed the form he was given and began his studies. He was subsequently disqualified from receiving benefits on the basis that he was not available for work due to his attendance in a course of which he was not referred by the Commission. If the applicant had not been given the wrong form to fill out then he would have received benefits for the period from August 30 to October 7. Absent from the purely administrative or clerical error made by an employee of the Commission, the appellant would have been lawfully entitled to receive benefits for the aforementioned period. The appeal is allowed. .
Appellant: T. Bertrand.
Date: 1994

CUB 36023Umipre Decision - The appellant had a previous history of working while attending courses and the nature of this particular course was one that could be terminated or postponed at any time. With this, and the claimant's genuine intention of finding employment, the appeal was allowed. .
Appellant: Sawarnjit Sidhu .
Date: 1996

CUB 42958Umipre Decision - Claimant was laid off due to a shortage of work. Shortly after this the claimant submitted a Training Course Questionnaire to the Commission indicating he would be attending University taking 16 hours of courses over Monday to Thursday of each week. The claimant stated that he wanted to find full time work while taking classes should suitable employment become available. When a claimant continues to look for work and is ultimately successful in obtaining full-time employment while still enrolled in school he must be seen as having satisfied the legislative requirement of being available and therefore being entitled to benefits. The appeal was allowed. .
Appellant: Derek Cunningham .
Date: 1998

CUB 48728Umipre Decision - At issue is whether the appellant failed to prove his availability for work while attending a course of instruction. His classes were from 9am to 3pm each day Monday to Friday. The claimant stated that if he found employment that he would have quit his schooling and the claimant was found to be actively seeking employment. Therefore, it must be found that the claimant was available for work. The appeal was allowed. Appellant: Billy Joe Noseworthy Date: 2000

CUB 49664Umipre Decision - The claimant left her job to attend a teaching certification course in Maine (she lived in New Brunswick while taking the course). The Board of Referees allowed the claimant's appeal based on her past working record of working while studying. Another issue in this case is that of just cause which the Board also allowed based on the stress the claimant's job put on her two children. The appeal was dismissed. .
Appellant: Commission .
Date: 2000

CUB 49681Umipre Decision - The claimant was laid off from his position as an administrative assistant. Prior to being laid off the claimant enrolled in, and paid for, a real estate licensing course which would, once completed, would allow him to work as a real estate agent. In an attempt to receive his high school equivalency certificate, the claimant also enrolled in English and math courses. During the period the claimant was laid off he also maintained his childcare responsibilities. Because the Referees found that the claimant's courses and childcare obligations did not unduly hinder his availability, it appears that the Commission's only recourse is to challenge the adequacy of his job search. However, the claimant was not informed until three months after he began receiving benefits, that his approach to seeking work was insufficient in the eyes of the Commission. He did not receive a warning letter as required by the jurisprudence that his benefits were in jeopardy, and despite his attempts to conform with the job search strategy demanded by the Commission, he was still retroactively disentitled. The appeal was allowed. .
Appellant: Douglas Schaufele .
Date: 2000

CUB 49959Umipre Decision - The Umpire finds that the claimant would have been more prudent in obtaining the Commission's approval prior to starting the training program. However, the claimant explained that he was proactive because he did not want to lose more time in his search for a solution to his inability to find stable and secure employment that would allow him to properly support his dependants. Therefore, the Umpire found that the claimant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert White
Date: 2000

CUB 52062Umipre Decision -The evidence shows that the claimant took a course under his own initiative and that he quit his job because of a shortage of work. The evidence also shows that he continued to look for work and was willing to give up his studies to work. The claimant states that he was working part time as a janitor, he did this to prove that he wanted to work and that he was actively looking for work. He was studying simply to occupy his time and he was willing to give it up to go back to work, since studying was not his main priority. It was the Umpire's opinion that the claimant was available for work and that the Board erred. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Reno Robert
Date: 2001

CUB 52265Umipre Decision - The claimant stated that she left her employment to go back to school as she could no longer pay child care and living expenses on 27 hours per week. The claimant then enrolled in a three year nursing program. She attends school Monday to Friday. She spends 12 hours a week in class, three hours in labs and three hours on her studies. She has no recent record of working full time while attending classes. The Board found that when the claimant accepted her position she was promised 40 hours a week, this was reduced to 27 hours and then changed to 33. She further stated that she had worked full time and pursued full time studies during 1989-1990. She also advised the Board that she was in regular contact with companies that she had applied for jobs with. There was evidence that the claimant had worked full time while attending school ten years ago but this was a long period before enrolling in her course. The Board did note that the claimant was carrying out a job search, the Umpire can see how the Board came to the conclusion that a person with the claimant's experience would have a good chance at finding employment. The Umpire did not disturb the finding of the Board when it came to the aspect of availability. The appeal was allowed for issue one.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2001

CUB 52365Umipre Decision - The Umpire believed that the Board erred in law when it came to the issue of availability. In this case the claimant indicated that she was able to work from 6:00 to 10:00 each day of the week for six days a week, for a total of 24 hours a week. There is no doubt that the claimant paid her employment insurance on the basis of working some 20 hours a week in her employment. The facts are there that the claimant was available for work as much as she was when her employment constituted of only 20 hours a week. The claimant showed that she was available for work. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Diane Johnston
Date: 2001

CUB 55359Umipre Decision - The Commission felt that as of October 1, 2001 the claimant was unavailable for work because he was taking a training course on his own initiative. When asked about the training course the claimant stated that he was in school from 9:30 to 12:30 on Mondays and Tuesdays, from 9:30 to 13:30 on Wednesdays and from 8:30 to 16:30 on Thursdays and Fridays. He indicated that he was available for work on Mondays to Wednesdays from 13:00 to 21:00. The claimant lives in an area where employment is scarce during the winter, for this reason the claimant decided to take the training course because he is tired of seasonal work and wants to be employed on a permanent basis. He states that if he wasn't taking the training course he would be on Employment Insurance because of the seasonal work. The Commission referred to the jurisprudence to the effect that there is a strong presumption that a person attending a full time study program is not available for work. In this case the Board reviewed the material and evidence before them and found that the claimant was available for work while attending a training course. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

CUB 56605Umipre Decision- The claimant indicates that he was available for work while taking a training course therefore entitling him to benefits. The Board denied his appeal due to the fact that he had not submitted a job search list. In reply to this the claimant stated that he did not know that he had to submit a job search list but indicated that he had looked for jobs and Human Resources Services of British Columbia also was looking for a job for the claimant. The Umpire disagreed with the Board in stating that the personal record of the claimant is solid and that he presently has three different jobs. The Umpire goes on to state:

" The sole fact he did not produce a list of job searches does not impeach his availability."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Edward Austin
Date: 2003

CUB 58671Umipre Decision - The claimant became unemployed in December 2001, he had applied for benefits and a benefit period was established. In May 2002 the claimant was accepted for a course at the University College of Cape Breton beginning in September. He also found summer employment in Ontario from June 10 to August 30 when he left to return to Cape Breton to enroll at the College. The claimant pointed out that he was available for work because his program director indicated that he would be able to arrange his school schedule to fit in any employment that he may obtain. It should also be noted that the claimant has a history of working and attending school since the age of 13. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 59406Umipre Decision/A-87-04 Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of Canada - The claimant began a full time course in March 25, 2002 during which she continued her part time employment, but the part time employment ended on March 30th because her employer had lost a major account. The claimant conducted an extensive job search for part time employment that was compatible with her course and eventually found employment in June 9th. The Board found the claimant to be capable and available to work. There is no evidence that the Board erred in law or in principle. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 59738Umipre Decision -The Commission argued that the claimant had turned down shifts and was not willing to leave school if work was found. They also argued that she did not offer a continuous job search. The claimant, on the other hand, contended that she was ready and willing to work and that she had worked numerous shifts at nights and weekends for various employers. She also pointed out that she had a history of attending school and working. The claimant, who is studying to be a registered nurse, pointed out that she is prepared to work and has worked many weekends and evening shifts, as well as holiday periods and vacation shifts. Umpire Riche's decision is as follows:

" I have taken into consideration, as no doubt the Board of Referees did, that this claimant is in the personal care field. Personal care is provided on a 24 hour basis and I believe I can take judicial notice of the fact that call ins for people for, as the claimant has stated, relief work is the norm rather than the exception. […]The fact that the Commission made much of the fact that she refused one shift is not sufficient to dislodge her evidence in total which shows a person who has been working while attending her course of instruction and is available and seeking work from institutions throughout her period while she is studying to become a registered nurse."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 60261Umipre Decision -The Board had allowed the appeal that the claimant, Exeline Saulnier, had proven her availability as of April 30, 2003. The claimant had left her employment on March 14, 2003 to enroll in two high school courses to upgrade her education. This a difficult area to prove one's availability and to show whether she was capable and available for work. Whether one is available for work is a question of fact. The Board's decision was brief. It said:

The Board of Referees, considering the new information given by the claimant, indicates that she was ready and available to work after April 20, 2003. Her course load was not as heavy as first thought and due to flexibility of hours of the claimant, she proved to the Board of Referees, her availability for work.

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 62580Umipre Decision -The claimant's representative argued that the Board erred in law when they dismissed the claimant's appeal, and when they found that the claimant did not prove his work study history, which would have allowed him to qualify for benefits, even though it dated back more than two years ago. It was also argued that there is no required time limit stated in the Act, he relied on the decision rendered in CUB 43253Umipre Decision. In S. Landry ( A-719-91)   Judgement Of The Supreme Court Of CanadaUmipre Decision, it was stated that a claimant taking a full time training course is deemed not available, however, this could be changed by proof of exceptional circumstances such as a work-study history. In the present case, the claimant did prove that he had a work-study history in 2001, 2002, and 2003. He was able to receive benefits at this time. The claimant had submitted a list of steps that he had taken to find employment from August to December 2003, despite the Commission's decision to deny the benefits claimed as of August 31, 2003. The Umpire felt that the claimant had a history of working and going to school. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Terry Godin
Date: 2004

CUB 68476Umipre Decision/A-356-07Umipre Decision - The Commission determined that the claimant was not available for work because she was attending a course on her own initiative. She was taking a Masters program which was running for three months with classes at varying times from Monday to Thursday. The claimant had indicated that she was willing to take full-time work and quit her class or change her schedule. She provided a list of employer contacts and had written exams for two positions. She had no previous history of working and taking classes at the same time. She also indicated that she was prepared to move to accept work. The Umpire supported the decision of the Board that she had proved availability. The appeal was dismissed. Appellant: Commission Date: 2007

CUB 68578Umipre Decision - The claimant was taking a training course at the Universite de Moncton with classes scheduled at various times: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Because of the nature of the course the Commission deemed she could not prove availability. The claimant indicated that over the past year she had worked and attended school at the same time. The Umpire determined that because she had a previous history of work, a current job search, and the stated willingness to leave her course to accept a good job, she should be considered available for benefit purposes. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lisa Michaud
Date: 2007

CUB 71589Umipre Decision - At the time of the claim, the claimant had only been working part-time in a nursing home. However, the claimant had established a history of working full-time while going to school for a year and a half, and stated that she was ready and able to go to work on any day of the week. The Umpire found that due to the circumstances of being able to work shift work, the claimant was indeed available to work unlike other workers in different circumstances. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 70740Umipre Decision- The Commission determined that the claimant was not available for work because she was taking a training course on her own initiative and had only worked outside her course schedule on Fridays. She had indicated that she was willing to quit her course to accept a full-time job and had records of contacts made seeking employment. She indicated at the hearing that she had only 17 hours of classes a week which left her a great deal of time for work and she had always worked while taking classes. The Umpire felt that the claimant had established availability, shown a desire to work, searched for a job and would have quit her job if required in order to take a job. He also indicated that she had not been warned to expand her job search before having a disentitlement imposed by the Commission. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 74064/A-109-10Umipre Decision / - The claimant was no longer able to work as a factory worker because of medical problems and therefore started an educational program, She applied for benefits and the Commission determined that she was not eligible for benefits because of the presumption that a full-time student is not available for work. The Board found that the student was in fact available for work based on the facts as the Board determined them. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 75054Umipre Decision - The claimant worked for Service d’aide à la famille until August 28, 2009. He filed an initial claim for benefits, which was established effective August 30, 2009. The Commi¬ssion found that the claimant failed to prove that he was available for work because he was taking a full-time training course. The Commission imposed an indefinite disentitlement on the claim¬ant effective September 6, 2009. The claimant appealed the Commission’s decision to a Board of Referees, which allowed the appeal because the claimant was referred to a course by the management of an authority and his courses were approved by an advisor on August 18, 2009. The Commission did not demonstrate the Board erred in law or fact. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 76929Umipre Decision - The claimant was to participate in a Career Transition Program. The commission determined the claimant was not eligible as she did not have a return to work action plan prior to her approval for benefits. The Board found the claimant did have an active return to work plan within the 20 weeks after the beginning of her benefit period. The claimant had suffered from a migraine, and on Aug 22 had to cancel her appointment with the career counsellor, the appointment was rescheduled for Sept 1. Had she kept her original appointment her eligibility would not have been an issue. The Board concluded the claimant had an active plan within the required time frame. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 20111

CUB 77681Umipre Decision - The claimant filed a claim for benefits Aug 22, 2010. The commission determined that the claimant did not prove he was available for work as he was in a training program. When the claimant was laid off he accepted training. He was taking classes14 hours per week and was seeking employment. In the past the claimant has taken classes and worked full time, this was not an issue for him. He stated if he had been offered full time employment he would have left training. The claimant had not left work to take this course and was willing to leave if full time employment was offered. The Board concluded he was available for work. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

CUB 77954Umipre Decision - The claimant in the application for benefits she said she left due to a shortage of work. The employer said she took an unpaid leave. The claimant was required to upgrade her certification in order to keep her job. The claimant took an unpaid leave, but the employer paid her the tuition. Although the claimant was unavailable to work during the training, the employer referred her to the training. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

CUB 78444Umipre Decision - The claimant voluntarily left one of his two part time jobs. It was part time and he worked on an on-call basis. The claimant wanted to take a training program which ran from Jan 25, 2009- June 25, 2009. During this time the claimant held one of the part time jobs. Because the commission focussed exclusively on the first job and failed to take into account the second job when calculating insurable hours the insurable hours were incorrectly calculated. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

CUB 77955Umipre Decision - The claimant worked part time at a sporting goods store, and was going to have his hours reduced after the Christmas season rush. After receiving an acceptance letter for police training he was approved for EI during the date for the training. He left his job one week before the training began. The claimant was under the impression he was approved for benefits, he got a verbal assurance that he would be authorized to take the approved course. The Board found that the claimant did all he needed to do, under the relevant sections of the act, to have his benefits continue during his attendance at the police training course. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011