• Home >
  • Umpire
  • Teachers

    II. Principles of Law

    (a) Purpose of the Legislation

    The reason that teachers receive special treatment under the legislation is because they work for ten months of the year but have contracts of service which continue throughout the year. Therefore, there is no lay-off or separation from employment giving rise to an interruption of earnings.

    Petts v. Canada (Unemployment Insurance Umpire) , [1974] 2 F.C. 225 (F.C.A.) File No. A-166-74 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
    Moyer v. M.E.I. [1981], F.C.J. No. 900 (F.C.A.) File No. A-97-81 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

    The regulation-making power of the Act, in conjunction with subsection 33(1) of the Regulations, recognizes that a teaching position is, in reality, for twelve months, even though the teacher performs no work during the non-teaching periods that fall within the school year. Therefore, even if the term of a teacher's contract is only ten months in length, in considering whether the claimant is entitled to benefits, the court must take into account evidence pertaining to the teaching and non-teaching periods.

    Stone v. Canada (A.G.) , [2006] F.C.J. No.64 (F.C.A.) A-367-04 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal; A-368-04 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

    The purpose of the Regulations governing teachers is to prevent "double dipping". Teachers are not entitled to collect employment insurance benefits during the non-teaching period when earnings are payable to them for that same period pursuant to their teaching contract.

    Canada (A.G.) v. Lewis, June 19, 1990, F.C.J. No. 547 (F.C.A.) A-475-89 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal; affirming CUB 17053 Judgment Of The Federal Court of Appeal
    Canada (A.G.) v. St-Coeur [1996], F.C.J. No. 514 (F.C.A.) File No. A-80-95 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
    Canada (A.G.) v. Donachey, May 8, 1997, F.C.J. No. 579 (F.C.A.) A-411-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
    Canada (A.G.) v. Partridge, June 4, 1999, F.C.J. No. 974 (F.C.A.) A-704-97 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

    [  previous Previous page  |  table of contents  |  next Next page  ]

    2009-04-29