CUB 57048

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:

This appeal was filed by the claimant and she has requested that the Umpire make a decision based upon the factual evidence in the file without a formal hearing. The issue is whether claimant failed to prove her availability for work.

The relevant legislation is the Employment Insurance Act, section 18(a):

18 A claimant is not entitled to be paid benefits for a working day in a benefit period for which the claimant fails to prove that on that day the claimant was

(a) capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment;

The claimant, an employee of School District #45 West Vancouver, was laid off June 28, 2002. She applied for unemployment benefits and a claim was established effective June 30, 2002. Claimant had secured employment with the School District commencing September 3, 2002. She was unemployed during the months of July and August.

In claimant's application she stated she was seeking work for the summer as an aide to special needs children on Bowen Island - which she later confirmed in a Supplementary Record of claim, as follows:

"Have been looking for work on Bowen Island through local classified ads in the Undercurrent. Bowen Island has an extremely small business base. All available positions are posted in local paper. There were no positions in my field of working with special needs children. A clerical position was posted by the municipality last Friday, August 23 2002. But I will be re employed by the time the application date terminates."

The insurance officer for the Employment Insurance Commission determined, therefore, that claimant was not entitled to benefits because she limited her opportunity for work to the geographical area of Bowen Island.

The claimant was asked to provide details of an active job search and she responded by saying that she checked classified ads of the North Shore News and The Bowen Island Undercurrent and she listed the dates of the publications she examined. She discloses only three applications for work throughout the summer on July 5, and 17, and August 8, 2002.

The Board of Referees observed that although claimant may have thought that her list in exhibit 14.1 consisted of a job search they were "simply a list of dates of the jobs found in newspapers, and where they were available". Moreover, the Board determined, quite properly, that three applications over a period of two and one-half months did not consist of a bona fide job search. Claimant submitted a lengthy submission in support of her appeal and in reply to the Board's observations regarding the publications she consulted she said "they were not jobs found, but rather an indication of the labour market at the time and the lack of suitable employment available to me during my period of unemployment." That is not entirely in accord with her statement in exhibit 14.1.

In her notice of appeal the claimant relies on all three grounds of appeal set forth in section 115 of the Act. With respect to ground (a) the principle of natural justice is a procedural principle to ensure that a claimant is given timely notice of the scheduling of a hearing and is accorded a fair hearing. The claimant attended the hearing of her appeal before the Board of Referees and there is no indication that she was not given a fair hearing.

In her submission the claimant says that the Board of Referees based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact because "The Board failed to recognize the job search provided (Exhibit 14.2) although it met the criteria demanded by the E.I. insurance agent to prove availability." The Board did recognize that evidence and found it to be not bona fide. The Board in giving recognition thereto inadvertently referred to exhibit 14.1 instead of 14.2 but that is of no significance.

The claimant makes a lengthy submission to demonstrate that the Board erred in law. She has researched well and I compliment her for her industry. Claimant, however, has not demonstrated error on the part of the Board. The principles of law upon which the Board relied are applicable to the facts. The fact is that the claimant essentially limited her job opportunities to Bowen Island and the type of work she sought, initially at least, was restricted to her particular skills. The claimant did not provide evidence of an active job search and despite the fact that her chance of success for work during the summer may have been limited she was obliged to actively seek work and to record the details of her applications for work. In that regard she failed. I will not disturb the Board's conclusion that the claimant failed to prove her availability for work.

The appeal is dismissed.

"W.J. Haddad"

W.J. Haddad, Q.C. - Umpire

Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
April 4, 2003.