Claim Procedure and Entitlement to Benefits
II. Principles of Law
(a) General
The duty to decide all questions necessary to establish a claimant's entitlement to benefits is conferred on the Commission by the legislation.
Canada (A.G.) v. Atwal , [1985], F.C.J. No. 1012 (F.C.A.) A-1070-84 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Petrie , [1985], F.C.J. No. 1101 (F.C.A.) A-39-85 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
However, the legislation imposes on the claimant the burden of establishing his or her eligibility for benefits in all cases.
Canada (A.G.) v. Walford, [1979] 1 F.C. 768 (F.C.A.) A-263-78 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Falardeau , February 11, 1986, F.C.J. No. 92 (F.C.A.) A-396-85 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Vinet v. C.E.I.C., [1989], F.C.J. No. 123 (F.C.A.) A-771-88 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
A claimant meets this onus by proving the case on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, if the Board of Referees has a doubt as to the claimant's entitlement, the claimant has failed to discharge the onus of proof.
The requirements and conditions of entitlement are ongoing. Accordingly, a claimant may be called upon to prove that he or she satisfies the conditions of the legislation, not just once at the beginning of unemployment, but afterwards as well and on a regular basis.
Harbour v. U.I.C., [1986], F.C.J. No. 69 (F.C.A.) A-541-85 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Cote v. C.E.I.C., [1986], F.C.J. No. 447 (F.C.A.) A-178-86 ; leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada refused [1987], 76 N.R. 79 (S.C.C.) Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Beauchemin v. C.E.I.C., [1987], 15 F.T.R. 83 (F.C.T.D.) T-621-87 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Chinook, January 15, 1998, F.C.J. No. 63 (F.C.A.) A-117-97 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
The onus is on the Commission to prove that it has directed a claimant to attend an interview.
The establishment of a benefit period does not give a claimant a vested right to benefits. A right to benefits becomes vested upon the filing of each bi-weekly claim establishing that the necessary conditions are met.
Cote v. C.E.I.C., [1986], F.C.J. No. 447 (F.C.A.) A-178-86 ; leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada refused [1987], 76 N.R. 79 (S.C.C.) Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Chinook,January 15, 1998, F.C.J. No. 63 (F.C.A.) A-117-97 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
There is no onus on the Commission to provide a claimant with legal advice so that he or she may comply with the provisions of the Act.
Furthermore, a claimant cannot avoid the application of the legislation simply because he or she was misinformed by the Commission.
Granger v. C.E.I.C., [1986] 3 F.C. 70 (F.C.A.) A-684-85 Judgment of the federal court of appeal; affirmed [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141 (S.C.C.) File No. 19959 Judgment Of The Supreme Court Of Canada
Where a claimant is of the view that he or she has been wrongly disentitled to benefits, the proper procedure is to launch an appeal to the Board of Referees.