CUB 76122

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.

IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

- and -

IN THE MATTER of a claim by
K.P.

- and -

DECISION

L.-P. LANDRY, Umpire

The claimant appeals from a decision of the Board of Referees confirming the Commission's decision to allow the claimant only 36 weeks of benefits.

The claimant was laid off from her employment on January 18, 2008. She filed her application for benefits on February 10, 2008. (Exhibit 14) On March 4, 2008 the Commission wrote to the claimant stating that upon verification of her Social Insurance Number there appeared to be a problem with the maiden name of the claimant's mother. The matter was apparently resolved on or about March 23, 2008.

For a reason which does not appear on the record, the Commission established the claimant's benefit period on the basis of a qualifying period from March 25, 2007 to March 22, 2008. Through this exercise the claimant was credited with 10 months of insurable hours, to wit March 25, 2007 to January 18, 2010. She lost two months of insurable hours since she did not work between January 18 and March 22, 2008.

The Commission normally will establish a benefit period from the date of the last day of work when the application for benefits is made within a period of 30 days from the time of the lay-off. A striking aspect of this case is that, for more than 20 years the claimant made her E.I. contributions and because at the time of her application there appeared to be some confusion about the maiden name of her mother, she loses two months of insurable hours in the calculations of her benefits.

I find no legal justification for a change of the qualifying period normally applicable when the application for benefits is made in a timely fashion, when all the essential elements are complete, save for the clarification of the maiden name of the claimant's mother.

The above question was not raised before the Board.

I therefore conclude that in this case the qualifying period of the claimant should have been established on the basis of her insurable hours from January 18, 2007 to January 18, 2008. The benefits payable during her benefit period should be amended accordingly.

For those reasons the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Board is rescinded. The matter will be returned to the Commission with instructions to use as a qualifying period in this matter, the period January 18, 2007 to January 18, 2008, with instructions to make the appropriate corrections to the benefits payable to the claimant, on the basis of her insurable hours in the said qualifying period.

L.P. Landry

Umpire

Gatineau, Quebec
December 16, 2010