CUB 62749

DUBÉ J.

The Commission appeals a decision of the Board of Referees allowing the appeal of the claimant of a Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant has to serve a waiting period on his current claim for apprenticeship training under section 39.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations. The section reads as follows:

39.1 The waiting period shall be waived if the following conditions are met:

a) The claimant is attending a course that is a required part of an apprenticeship program and to which they are referred pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(a) of the Act;

b) the claimant has ceased working for the reason described in paragraph (a);

and

c) the claimant has, after the coming into force of this section, served a waiting period in respect of a course that is required part of the same apprenticeship program.

The claimant's employment with Aerco Industries Ltd. ended on December 10th, 2003 due to apprentice training. His expected date of return was March 1st, 2004. His employer explained that the claimant could have worked until January 2, 2004 but he took time off because he got married. The Commission notified the claimant that he was disentitled from benefits from December 14, 2003 to January 3, 2004 because he was on holidays and could not prove his availability for work.

The Commission further determined that although the claimant had already served the waiting period on an earlier claim to attend apprenticeship training on November 10, 2002, he could not have his waiting period waived on this claim pursuant to regulation 39.1 (b) because he did not cease working for the reason of attending an apprenticeship course, he ceased working for the reason of getting married and enjoying a holiday, which is perfectly normal, but not an acceptable condition under the above Regulations.

The claimant appeals on the ground that while he did not dispute the fact that he was on holidays, he was not seeking benefits for that period, but he did want his waiting period waived in accordance with the above regulations.

It follows that the Board erred in law and it held that "there was no seperation of employment between the claimant and his employer due to the claimant taking two weeks off prior to starting his aprenticeship training." In fact, the claimant ceased working but not for attending a course.

Consequently, the appeal of the Commission is allowed.

J.E. DUBÉ

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
January 21, 2005