Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (A-132-12)
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
Y.T.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
December 30, 2010 at Calgary, Alberta
L.-P. LANDRY, Umpire
The Commission’s appeals from a decision of the Board of Referees allowing the claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Commission disentitling the claimant from benefits for a period of one week while she was outside Canada.
The claimant, although duly notified, did not appear at the hearing set for November 4, 2011 at Calgary, Alberta. This decision is based on the material on the docket after consideration of the Commission’s submission at the hearing.
The claimant was in the U.S. for a period of one week from July 15 to July 22, 2009. The Commission originally concluded that the claimant was not available for work during the period and that the exceptions provided in section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations did not apply to the claimant’s situation.
The Commission conceded that on the question of availability, the appeal to the Board should be allowed. The matter of the application of section 55 of the Regulations remains in issue.
Originally the claimant indicated to the Commission that she did travel to the U.S. to visit her son. However, before the Board, the claimant stated that before travelling to the U.S. she had arranged a meeting with the Director of sales for the Phoenix Cayotes hockey team. She was looking for the possibility of some business arrangement between the Cayotes and her travel company.
The Board accepted the claimant’s evidence and concluded that the claimant did travel to the U.S. to attend a job interview as provided in section 55(1)(e) of the Regulations.
The question of the weigh to be given to the original statement is a question of fact left to the appreciation of the Board. There is no binding legal rule to the effect that the original statement should have more weight than evidence given orally before the Board.
In this case there is evidence in support of the Board’s conclusion. The Commission has failed to demonstrate that this conclusion is unreasonable.
For those reasons the appeal is dismissed.
L.P. Landry
UMPIRE
Gatineau, Quebec
November 14, 2011