What's New

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.

Board of Referees Jurisdiction:

STEEL A-53-10: Write Off of an overpayment rests with the Commission.

WEGENER T-1036-10: The claimant requested the Commission, Board of Referees and the Federal Court to back-date the start date of her self-employment remittance of Employment Insurance premiums for Special Benefits. The Federal Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal stating that neither the Commission, the Board of Referees or the Court have jurisdiction to back date an agreement under the Fairness for Self-Employed Act. In dismissing the appeal the Court stated: “…even if, on a very broad interpretation of the words “claim for benefits” the Board of Referees could be said to have jurisdiction to hear the request that the agreement be back-dated, it would not have jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought.”

Antedate:

TRINH A-105-10: Delay due to misinformation did not amount to good cause. The claimant did not submit any details on who had provided her with the wrong information.

SOMWARU A-106-10: Good cause was not found based on the claimant’s argument he had delayed in filing because he believed he could not receive benefits while collecting a pension.

INNES A-108-10: The Court could not find the claimant had good cause for delay and stated: “She assumed (incorrectly) that she did not have enough hours to be eligible to make a claim, but took no steps to validate that assumption.”

HOWARD A-283-10: The claimant argued he had delayed in filing as had been looking for employment while living on his severance package and his savings. He had not wanted to go to the government with his hand out. The Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal and could not find good cause had been shown.

Availability:

CYRENNE A-109-10: Presumption of non availability while attending a full time course of instruction was successfully rebutted. The Court determined the Board of Referees are in the best position to make a credibility determination.

Earnings:

BOUCHER-DANCAUSE A-64-10: Monies received from a Civil Court Settlement is earnings within the meaning of Section 35 of the Regulations and must be allocated in accordance with subsection 36(9) of the Regulations if they were paid due to the severance of an employment relationship.

BOOTON A-61-10: Any monies arising out of the services performed in connection with acting as an executor/executrix pursuant to a will are considered earnings arising out of employment.

Misconduct:

CASTONGUAY A-189-09, DROUIN A-190-09, GIRARD A-191-09, GAGNÉ A-193-09, TREMBLAY A-194-09, GUILLEMETTE A-195-09: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Commission’s appeal stating: “…the claimants involved could not suspect that their behaviour would jeopardize their employment, given that this behaviour had long been tolerated, even by the supervisors, and that these actions had been committed in plain sight and with the knowledge of the supervisors without penalty, at least as far as the claimants knew.”

LEMIRE A-51-10: The Board incorrectly ruled on the severity of the disciplinary measure instead of whether the action in question constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act.

LEPRETRE A-246-10: Onus of Proof on the employer and Commission to prove misconduct.

Out of Canada:

WALSH A-304-07/CUB 68174: The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the Umpire decision that the 2 exceptions found in Regulation 55 (1)(b) and 55(1)(d) could be combined to allow for benefits to be payable for 14 consecutive days outside of Canada.

In CUB 72341 and CUB 71384, the Umpire determined the claimant’s could not combine 2 exceptions found in Regulation 55(1) as they differed from the Walsh A-304-07/CUB 68174 decision.

Qualifying Conditions:

HENDERSON A-455-10: Extended benefits under the long-tenured worker provisions not allowed due to the “…clear wording of section 9 and subsection 10(1) of the Act, which define the establishment of the “benefit period”.”

Reconsideration of a Claim:

IRVINE A-269-10: The Federal Court of Appeal found that the alleged new fact was not material to the applicant’s claim and consequently did not meet the new facts test for reconsideration pursuant to Section 120 of the Act.

CHAMCHUK A-302-10: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal stating: “This Court has repeatedly held that absent special circumstances, it will not use a judicial review of the reconsideration decision as a vehicle for a collateral attack of the original decision…”

Special Benefits – Parental:

CUB 76899: Parents of twins can not both benefit from 35 weeks parental benefits. The Umpire stated that pursuant to Section 12(4)(b) of the Act, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid for the care of one or more new-born or adopted children as a result of a single pregnancy or placement is 35. (The claimant has filed for a judicial review and a decision is pending.)

Voluntary Leaving:

WILLIAMS A-107-10: The claimant did not meet the conditions set out in Regulation 51 to be approved under the Workforce Reduction program.

MACLEOD A-96-10: Voluntarily leaving one’s employment to undertake studies does not consitute “just cause”.

YEO A-271-10: The claimant resigned due to his parental responsibilities. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Commission’s appeal stating: “He did not show that he was unable to hire someone for the hours necessary to meet the children and take them to their after-school activities. Nor had he explored with his employer the possibility of a temporary leave of absence to look for another job, or sought some accomodation from his employer that would have enabled him to attend job interviews while still employed.”

WHITE A-381-10: Significant change in job duties – demoted from office manager to work under the new office manager.

JAMIESON A-457-10: The employer denied the claimant’s request for two days of leave and the claimant informed his employer that he would not be at work for the two days, regardless of the fact that his leave request had been denied.

LANGEVIN A-262-10: The fact of leaving its employment to improve its situation does not constitute a justification within the meaning of the subparagraph 29c) Employment Insurance Act.

Quick Reference