TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
Ginette ROY
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the
claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given
in Lévis, Quebec, on August 28, 1985
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-1166-87
DECISION
JOYAL, J.:
A reading of sections 19 and 21 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and section 44 of the related Regulations clearly indicates that before a claimant may receive benefits, he must above all be unemployed.
This is the issue the board of referees had to decide in the case of the claimant, who was involved in a government project entitled "Stage en milieu de travail" [on-the-job training]. This course, for which the employer paid him $25 a week, was an apprenticeship or development course. His work occupied him for between 30-32 and 35-37 hours a week and the evidence indicated that this scheme was more or less the same for the other employees. *
In its decision dated August 28, 1985 a majority of the board of referees agreed with the earlier decision of the Employment and Immigration Commission and ruled that the claimant always did a week of work and was not unemployed.
It was because of this employment, low paying though it was, that the claimant's entitlement was jeopardized. Entitlement is not, however, the same as availability, although the dissenting member of the board found a connection between them. There is a clear distinction between the two. The unemployment insurance scheme intended that, before a person could prove that he was able to work, his availability to do so and his inability to obtain suitable employment, he must first prove that he is unemployed and this is often difficult to establish when he is involved in a training or apprenticeship program requiring an average 35 hours a week.
I admit that the statutory requirements may be interpreted as being prejudicial to the claimant. In retrospect, she may wish that she had never become involved in her on-the-job training course. This is a sentiment, however, for which the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 provides no retroactive remedy. Moreover, the same fate is often suffered by contractors, real estate agents or other businessmen who realize only too late that their unemployment insurance benefits would have been higher than the meagre income from their businesses. Nevertheless, these people are not unemployed and cannot receive benefits.
I must conclude that the majority decision of the board of referees was correct in fact and in law. I must dismiss the appeal.
L.-Marcel Joyal
UMPIRE
OTTAWA
October 26, 1987