TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefit by
Nathalie JEAN
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given at
Charlesbourg, Quebec, on February 24, 1987.
DECISION
JEAN-EUDES DUBE UMPIRE:
The claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits under paragraph 25(a) of the Act on the ground that she was not available for work since she was a full-time university student. The board of referees unanimously upheld the Commission’s decision.
The claimant has a nursing diploma but, as is shown in her claim for benefit, she refused to work in a hospital situation. She therefore left her employment with the Centre hospitalier Robert Giffard since the times of her classes were incompatible with her employment. She was looking only for part-time work.
Normally, registration in a full-time course of study has the effect of disqualifying a claimant from receiving benefits since his availability for work is then in doubt (CUB 9903). To prove that he is entitled to benefits in this situation, a claimant must show that in the past he established a pattern in which he worked regularly while continuing to study (CUBs 9903, 10435 and 11146). The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 is not in principle responsible for subsidizing claimants’ studies, except in the cases prescribed in section 39, when the Commission refers them to certain training courses.
In this case the claimant attempted to show that she had in the past established a pattern that combined regular work in tandem with a course of studies. She had made the same argument to the board of referees, which disposed of it as follows:
... Concerning her previous work habits, the claimant explained that earlier she had studied on weekends and during the summer when she was taking courses toward her DEC [commercial studies diploma]. She also explained that at the end of her course she was on call with the Robert Giffard clinic. The board of referees felt that this was not the pattern required of a claimant to show that he can both work and study full time. This work pattern was no different from that of any other student and this case is accordingly not an exception.
It must be recognized that after her first statement, referred to above, that she did not wish to work in a hospital, the claimant thought better and completed a questionnaire concerning the training courses on the following day. In this form she indicated a change in her course schedule that enabled her to work at certain times during the week and she said that she was prepared to abandon her course to accept suitable employment.
Despite this second statement by the claimant, I cannot find that the board erred in law or in its assessment of the facts. It is not the Umpire’s role to substitute his judgment for that of the board of referees and to impose his own decision with respect to an assessment of the facts. The documents in the record justified the decision rendered by the board.
Consequently, this appeal cannot be allowed.
UMPIRE
Ottawa
May 25, 1988