The duty to decide all questions necessary to establish a claimant's entitlement to benefits is conferred on the Commission by the legislation.
Canada (A.G.) v. Atwal , [1985], F.C.J. No. 1012 (F.C.A.) A-1070-84
Canada (A.G.) v. Petrie , [1985], F.C.J. No. 1101 (F.C.A.) A-39-85
However, the legislation imposes on the claimant the burden of establishing his or her eligibility for benefits in all cases.
Canada (A.G.) v. Walford, [1979] 1 F.C. 768 (F.C.A.) A-263-78
Canada (A.G.) v. Falardeau , February 11, 1986, F.C.J. No. 92 (F.C.A.) A-396-85
Vinet v. C.E.I.C., [1989], F.C.J. No. 123 (F.C.A.) A-771-88
A claimant meets this onus by proving the case on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, if the Board of Referees has a doubt as to the claimant's entitlement, the claimant has failed to discharge the onus of proof.
Canada (A.G.) v. Falardeau February 11, 1986, F.C.J. No. 92, (F.C.A.) A-396-85
The requirements and conditions of entitlement are ongoing. Accordingly, a claimant may be called upon to prove that he or she satisfies the conditions of the legislation, not just once at the beginning of unemployment, but afterwards as well and on a regular basis.
Harbour v. U.I.C., [1986], F.C.J. No. 69 (F.C.A.) A-541-85
Cote v. C.E.I.C., [1986], F.C.J. No. 447 (F.C.A.) A-178-86 ; leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada refused [1987], 76 N.R. 79 (S.C.C.)
Beauchemin v. C.E.I.C., [1987], 15 F.T.R. 83 (F.C.T.D.) T-621-87
Canada (A.G.) v. Chinook, January 15, 1998, F.C.J. No. 63 (F.C.A.) A-117-97
The onus is on the Commission to prove that it has directed a claimant to attend an interview.
Canada (A.G.) v. Herrera, F.C.J. No. 120, January 23, 2001 (F.C.A.) A-397-99
The establishment of a benefit period does not give a claimant a vested right to benefits. A right to benefits becomes vested upon the filing of each bi-weekly claim establishing that the necessary conditions are met.
Cote v. C.E.I.C., [1986], F.C.J. No. 447 (F.C.A.) A-178-86 ; leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada refused [1987], 76 N.R. 79 (S.C.C.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Chinook,January 15, 1998, F.C.J. No. 63 (F.C.A.) A-117-97
There is no onus on the Commission to provide a claimant with legal advice so that he or she may comply with the provisions of the Act.
Canada (A.G.) v. Mercier, [1977] 2 F.C. 389 (F.C.A.) A-690-75
Furthermore, a claimant cannot avoid the application of the legislation simply because he or she was misinformed by the Commission.
Granger v. C.E.I.C., [1986] 3 F.C. 70 (F.C.A.) A-684-85; affirmed [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141 (S.C.C.) File No. 19959
Where a claimant is of the view that he or she has been wrongly disentitled to benefits, the proper procedure is to launch an appeal to the Board of Referees.
Beauchemin v. C.E.I.C. , [1987], 15 F.T.R. 83 (F.C.T.D.) T-621-87
[ previous | table of contents | next ]