(g) Course of Instruction
Unemployment insurance benefits are not meant to subsidize claimants who leave the work force to attend school. Claimants in this situation must still prove their availability for employment. Whether a full-time student is available is a question of fact.
Canada (A.G.) v. Floyd, April 27, 1994, F.C.J. No. 605 (F.C.A.) A-168-93
Canada (A.G.) v. Martel (1994), 175 N.R. 275 (F.C.A.) A-1691-92
Canada (A.G.) v. Lamonde, 2006 FCA 44 A-566-04
There is a presumption that a claimant who is enrolled in a full-time course of instruction is not available. However, this is a presumption of fact which can be rebutted. It can be rebutted by proof of exceptional circumstances.
Canada (A.G.) v. Mercer, [1977] 2 F.C. 389 (F.C.A.) A-690-75
Landry v. Canada (A.G.) [1992], F.C.J. No. 965 (F.C.A.) A-719-91
Canada (A.G.) v. Rideout, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1487 (F.C.A.) A-670-02
Canada (A.G.) v. Gagnon, 2005 FCA 321 A-556-04
Canada (A.G.) v. Lamonde, 2006 FCA 44 A-566-04
The most effective way to rebut the presumption of non-availability, is for a claimant to demonstrate a history of full-time or part-time work while attending a course of instruction. However, the mere absence of such a pattern will not automatically mean the claimant is unavailable.
Landry v. Canada (A.G.) [1992], F.C.J. No. 965 (F.C.A.) A-719-91
Canada (A.G.) v. Rideout, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1487 (F.C.A.) A-670-02
Canada (A.G.) v. Loder, 2004 FCA 18 A-699-02
Canada (A.G.) v. Lamonde, 2006 FCA 44 A-566-04
A claimant must be able to establish a pattern which demonstrates his or her ability to work and attend the full-time course of instruction. Furthermore, Saturdays and Sundays are not regarded as working days for the purpose of determining an individual's availability for work.
Canada (A.G.) v. MacDonald, May 31, 1994, F.C.J. No. 841 (F.C.A.) A-672-93; affirming CUB 23283
Canada (A.G.) v. Primard, 2003 FCA 349 A-683-01
Canada (A.G.) v. Gagnon, 2005 FCA 321 A-556-04
Canada (A.G.) v. Lamonde, 2006 FCA 44 A-566-04
The finding of a Board about whether a pattern of combining work and school has been established is a finding of fact.
Jean v. Canada (A.G.) , A-787-88, May 3, 1989, (F.C.A.) ; affirming CUB 15439
A history of part-time and summer employment together with a course of instruction or attendance at school may not be sufficient to show availability since there is nothing exceptional about this behavior given that it is what most students do.
Jean v. Canada (A.G.) , A-787-88, May 3, 1989, (F.C.A.) ; affirming CUB 15439
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2010-03-01