Canada Employment Insurance Commission v. L. D.

Canada Employment Insurance Commission v. L. D.

The General Division misinterpreted paragraph 33(2)(b); the uncontested evidence established the respondent held a continuous 20% teaching contract from Aug 29, 2014 to June 30, 2015 making her employment regular, continuous and for a predetermined term, not casual or substitute, therefore she did not meet the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SSTADEI 511
Parties
Appellant: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Respondent: L. D.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal to Appeal Division / Appeal Decision Following General Division Decision of March 9, 2016
Outcome
Appeal allowed; General Division decision of March 9, 2016 rescinded; respondent's appeal before the General Division dismissed.
Legal Topics
Disentitlement Under Section 33 of the Employment Insurance Regulations, Teachers and Non Teaching Periods, Judicial Review and Standards of Appeal
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Disentitlement Under Section 33 of the Employment Insurance Regulations Teachers and Non Teaching Periods Judicial Review and Standards of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Appellant

L. D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal to Appeal Division / Appeal Decision Following General Division Decision of March 9, 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division erred in finding that the respondent teacher was not subject to the disentitlement in section 33 of the Employment Insurance Regulations for the non-teaching periods of Dec 21, 2014–Jan 3, 2015 and Mar 1–7, 2015

Ratio Decidendi

The General Division misinterpreted paragraph 33(2)(b); the uncontested evidence established the respondent held a continuous 20% teaching contract from Aug 29, 2014 to June 30, 2015 making her employment regular, continuous and for a predetermined term, not casual or substitute, therefore she did not meet the exception in s.33(2)(b) and was disentitled during the non-teaching periods; the General Division decision is rescinded and the respondent's appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; General Division decision of March 9, 2016 rescinded; respondent's appeal before the General Division dismissed.

Orders

  • The decision rendered by the General Division on March 9, 2016 is rescinded.
  • The appeal of the Respondent before the General Division is dismissed.