CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-719-91
TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim by
LANDRY, Sarto
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given
at Ottawa, Ontario on August 10th, 1989.
DECISION
DUBÉ J., UMPIRE
This claimant is contesting the unanimous decision of a Board of Referees, which upheld the decision of the Commission's officer to the effect that the claimant, who was taking a course, had not proved his availability for work in accordance with paragraph 14(a) and section 23 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The claimant, a graduate in civil law and agronomy, was unable to find work and went to take courses in common law at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario. He had first obtained a bursary worth approximately $7,000 and a loan of $2,300. He also paid enrolment fees of nearly $1,000. After receiving unemployment insurance benefit for five months, he was disentitled from benefit on January 4, 1989.
The claimant did not attend the proceedings before the Board of Referees, but represented himself before the umpire at the hearing of his appeal, which was held in Quebec City, Quebec on Monday, May 13, 1991. He explained, in a very pleasant manner, that he had been unable to find work in the Gaspé region, of which he was a native, or in Quebec City where he then lived. Rather than waste his time, he had preferred to improve his knowledge of common law while learning English as a second language. In late April, after filing several job searches, he finally got a job with the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa. He is currently working in the legal aid department in Montreal.
An abundant and consistent case law has long confirmed that a student taking courses on a full-time basis is not available for work within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This principle admits of two exceptions. The first exception pertains to a student who has been referred to a course by the Commission. This is not the case for this claimant. The second exception may benefit a student who, over the years, has established a history of holding a regular job while going to school. The claimant likewise does not fit this category.
It must also be remembered that this claimant had already received benefit for five months, and that he was seriously involved with his studies, since he had accepted a rather substantial bursary and had taken out a loan. One cannot therefore find, under the provisions of section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, that the Board of Referees erred in law or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. Consequently, the umpire cannot intervene in this affair and set aside a decision that agrees in all respects with the applicable case law.
The claimant's appeal may therefore not be allowed.
"Jean Eudes Dubé"
UMPIRE
Ottawa, Ontario
Mai 31st 1991