EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Judicial review of Umpire’s decision upholding decision by Board of Referees—Respondent claimed employment insurance benefits after voluntarily leaving her employment to accompany her spouse to another place of residence— Employment Insurance Act, s. 29(c)(ii) makes exception to concept of benefit disqualification mentioned in s. 30 when person leaving his or her employment does so as result of obligation to accompany spouse or common‑law partner—Act states that leaving in such circumstances justified for purposes of entitlement to benefits if other conditions in Act met, including condition of entitlement—Respondent properly took advantage of this exception—However, she admitted before Board of Referees she was not available to work from September 29 to November 7, 2003—Majority of Board of Referees, Umpire in case at bar and Umpire in CUB 57793 confused concepts of disqualification and disentitlement conveyed in Act—Act, s. 18 indicates conditions for entitlement to benefits—According to that section, availability assessed by working day in benefit period in which claimant can prove capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment—Application allowed— Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, ss. 18, 29 (as am. by S.C. 2000, c. 12, s. 108), 30.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Cloutier (A‑400‑04, 2005 FCA 73, Létourneau J.A., judgment dated 17/2/05, 5 pp.)