In the Matter of the Employment Insurance Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 23
and
In the Matter of a claim for unemployment benefits by
Angela Bischoff
and
In the Matter of an Appeal by the Claimant from the decision of a Board of Referees given at Halifax, Nova Scotia on September 16, 2003
Appeal heard at Toronto, Ontario on November 15, 2005
DECISION
R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:
Ms. Bischoff appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees dismissing, in part, her appeal from a Commission ruling that it could not pay her benefits as of April 20, 2003 because she did not prove her availability for work.
The Board of Referees allowed her appeal with respect to the period after July 31, 2003 and dismissed it with respect to the period from April 20 to July 31. That is the period that is in issue on the present appeal.
Ms. Bischoff applied for unemployment benefits on April 21, 2003. She had been employed in Toronto until December 31, 2002. On May 18, 2003 she moved to a farm property near Killaloe.
On June 16, 2003 the Commission wrote to Ms. Bischoff informing her it could not pay her benefits as of April 20, 2003 because she was absent from her home area and therefore could not prove her availability for work. On July 14 a Commission employee spoke by telephone with Ms. Bischoff who was then visiting family in Edmonton for two weeks. The notes of the conversation include the following:
Claimant stated she is in this rural area [Killaloe] because she is getting housing for a very minimal amount. She moved here to voluntarily work with 4 other people to put together a proposal worth half a million dollars for Rural Development in Ontario of the Hemp Industry. The deadline for submissions for the grant for this project was July 11/03, the proposal went to the Ontario Municipal Affairs and Regional Development Board for review. They hope to hear by Sept and claimant has proposed she lead this project, so she would therefore get a job from this effort.
...
Asked claimant if she had made any other job searching while working on this project and she indicated she had not. All of her time had been spent working on this as she hoped to obtain employment from it. She is now making job contacts in Calgary [sic] and upon her return will continue to make job search efforts here in Ontario.
On July 15 the Kingston office of the Commission wrote to Ms. Bischoff to confirm its earlier ruling, saying:
This is because you have been working on a proposal for submission to the Ontario Government since your arrival in this area. You indicated that you did not seek any other employment during this period, that you were working on this document in hopes of approval which would lead to employment on your part. Therefore, you have not proven your availability.
In her letter of appeal to the Board of Referees, dated July 31, 2003, Ms. Bischoff outlined her job search activities after moving to Killaloe. Exhibit 18, which is not complete in the appeal record, is a list of job inquiries made although no dates are shown.
Although the Commission based its decision on Ms. Bischoff's move from Toronto to Killaloe in May, in its written representations to the Board of Referees it said she had not submitted any evidence that she was available and actively seeking work between April 20 and May 18. In fairness, the Commission did not ask her specifically for information with respect to that time period.
In her July 31 letter of appeal Ms. Bischoff mentioned that on July 18she had submitted a résumé to an environmental NGO in Halifax and had been interviewed on July 28. That, in fact, led to employment and she moved to Halifax in August. She also detailed job searches she had made while in Edmonton. The Board of Referees made specific reference to that in its decision.
The findings of fact by the Board of Referees were terse:
The Board finds that during the period of April 20, to July 31, 2003 the claimant restricted her availability for work. Therefore, Angela Bischoff did not meet the requirements of subsection 18(a) of the EI Act for proving her availability.
The Board also concludes that after July 31, 2003 the appellant proved her availability from the date.
While Ms. Bischoff's voluntary work between May 18 and July 11 did restrict her availability for work, I find that the Board's conclusion with respect to the periods from April 21 to May 18 and from July 11 to July 31 was reached without regard for the material before the Board.
The appeal is allowed in part and the period of Ms. Bischoff's disentitlement is reduced to the period from May 18 to July 11, 2003.
Ronald C. Stevenson
Umpire
FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
November 29, 2005