EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Bishop v. Canada (Employment Insurance Commission)
A-151-01
2002 FCA 276, Sexton J.A.
26/6/02
5 pp.
Application for judicial review of umpire's decision allowing respondent's appeal from Board of Referees' decision reversing Commission's determination applicant did not qualify for regular employment insurance benefits because, as teacher, not entitled to receive benefits during non-teaching period--Application dismissed--Applicant, teacher hired for one year contract ending June 25, 1999-- June 11, 1999 letter advising applicant rehired for further year under contract for position for coming school year--Applicant claimed for employment insurance benefits for months of July and August during which applicant still paid amounts owed to him from first contract in form of "hold back pay" whereby teacher's pay spread over twelve months--Umpire found applicant not unemployed during months of July and August within meaning of Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 33(2)--Case of Ying v. Canada, [1998] F.C.J. No. 1615 (F.C.A.) (QL) distinguished as teacher therein did not receive hold back pay throughout summer--Canada (Attorney General) v. Partridge (1999), 245 N.R. 163 (F.C.A.), holding teacher receiving hold back pay not entitled to unemployment benefits, applied--Furthermore, June 11, 1999 letter informing applicant rehired for "1999-2000 school year" and Newfoundland Schools Act, 1997 defining school year as "commencing on July 1 in calendar year ending June 30 in following calendar year"--Thus, applicant not out of work at all and paid during entire period for which claiming EI benefits--To allow applicant to receive employment insurance for summer months would effectively be doubly compensating him for that period of time--Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332, s. 33(2)--Schools Act, 1997, S.N.L. 1997, c. S-122, s. 2 "school year".