Archived - Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles Chapter 10 - Section 4

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

10.4.0 Practical application

When the time comes to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits, availability for work is probably the most difficult question to decide. It has often been said that availability is a question of fact to be considered in reference to the particular circumstances of each case.

In this subsection, an effort is made to develop concepts which will promote uniformity in the adjudication of claims for benefits. Of course, the principles outlined here are flexible and should be adapted to the specific circumstances of each individual case.

10.4.1 Standard availability defined

In order to determine whether the claimant's availability is restricted to some extent, it is first necessary to establish a basic definition of what normal availability is. Normal availability at any time during the benefit period is described in the following paragraphs, in light of relevant jurisprudence.

The willingness to accept immediately, any employment opportunity, anywhere in one's work area, by using any available means of transportation, without demanding anything more than what is suitable under the legislation, in terms of type of work, wages or salary, hours and other working conditions.

The work area refers to that geographical region in which the claimant is normally gainfully employed. It is not limited to the claimant's municipality but is comprised of all surrounding communities to which the local residents would usually commute.

It should be pointed out that this definition does not take into account local economic conditions or the extent to which the work area is industrialized. These are factors which should not be used in assessing availability for work. Rather, availability should be determined on the basis of one's willingness to work, personal efforts to find work and any restriction which reduces chances of finding employment.

It would hardly seem acceptable to reduce or cancel entitlement to benefits just because one's normal place of residence and work is in a region of low economic activity, thus apparently advocating that people leave rural or isolated areas. Much to the contrary, the current legislation provides not for a shorter, but for a longer period of benefit in cases of claimants residing in an area of high unemployment.

Finally, it must be borne in mind that the above definition of work area is valid as far as the assessment of availability is concerned. It is not necessarily applicable when considering a refusal of a job offer. It is quite possible a disqualification may be applied in the case of a job refusal outside one's work area, but a finding of non-availability based solely on such reason would be improper. Immediate availability

A claimant must prove they are available on a day-by-day basis for every working day, as prescribed in the Section 18(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance A ct. Furthermore, an unemployed person must be in a position to accept immediately, or within a very short time, any opportunity for suitable employment. This demonstrates the constant concern any unemployed person must have to put an end to a period of unemployment as soon as possible.

Some individuals can be available to report for work within a few hours, whereas others require more time to free themselves from ongoing or occasional constraints or obligations.

If a long time is required, this may cast doubt on the claimant's availability. The issue then is what period of delay is acceptable before availability is questionable. Under the Act, a claimant must be available on a day-to-day basis. This implies that persons who sincerely want to work should make arrangements so that if any opportunity for suitable employment arises, they are able, without delay, to report for work that same day, or at the latest, the following day.

However, some employments will require the individual to be on call or available with very little notice. In such cases, a claimant who cannot resolve the problems which prevent the immediate acceptance of any opportunity for suitable employment on the same day or, at the latest the following day, cannot be considered available for work.

There is no question that, during a period of availability, there may be occasional isolated working days when a claimant devotes time to personal concerns, leaves the immediate area to visit family or friends, or fulfills civic, legal, moral, religious or family obligations. On such occasions it must be ensured that the claimant has remained available and could have reported for work, at the latest, the day following an offer of employment.

Obviously, a working day devoted to such activities cannot be considered isolated if it happens frequently or at regular intervals. If it does, then it restricts the claimant's overall availability. The question then becomes to what extent this restriction affects the claimant's opportunities for employment, considering the occupation and terms of employment. These cases will be evaluated by using the principle developed under Digest, "Restricted availability". In the past, it has been the practice not to doubt the claimant's availability if the claimant has been absent from their area for a short period, a week or less, when this absence occurs during a period of availability and the claimant has made the necessary arrangements to be reached without delay, and to return within 48 hours if informed of an opportunity for employment..

For example, a claimant, as a result of obligations or constraints or merely out of personal choice, could be occupied on an isolated occasion during a period of availability, for not one, but several consecutive working days.

The question then is whether the claimant, given the circumstances, is acting as a person who is anxious to seize every opportunity for suitable employment as soon as possible. A mere statement of availability is not sufficient. The claimant must have made specific arrangements to be reached and informed without delay if an opportunity for suitable employment should arise, and be willing and able to return from an absence or to free themselves from obligations, and report for work within the next 24 hours or at the most, 48 hours.

The arrangements must, obviously, be specific and credible, and must demonstrate that the claimant can respond quickly to every opportunity for suitable employment. The fact that, in such a situation, a claimant states they have not made or have been prevented from making personal attempts to find work, would indicate a situation of non-availability. The agent must determine if the length of time indicated by the claimant seems reasonable and supports their desire to find and obtain employment. A short period of time may be allowed in such situations. On the other hand, however, the availability of a claimant who is not in a position to actively seek work, for a longer period, will be in doubt.

This approach regarding immediate availability assumes that the claimant remains available for work despite the situation. It does not apply to an individual who, for example, takes a period of rest, a vacation or an unpaid leave from an employer and who might claim that such a period of rest or leave could be interrupted at any time within 24, or at the most 48 hours, if an opportunity for suitable employment arose. Such a situation cannot be interpreted as being synonymous with availability.

It must be emphasized that this general approach applies in many situations, some of which are the subject of specific sections in this chapter: (Digest 10.8.0 "Hours of work; family obligations and religious beliefs", Digest 10.12.1 "Visiting family and friends", Digest 10.12.2 "On vacation", Digest 10.12.4 "Sickness or death in family", Digest 10.12.5 "Staying at the cottage", Digest 10.15.5. "Jury or emergency duty", and Digest 10.12.8 "Out of Canada").

Finally, an individual who has actually missed an opportunity for suitable employment because of an inability to respond within the time required by the employer must demonstrate that there was a valid reason. Such a case will be evaluated based on the principles in Chapter 9 of this Digest. (Digest Chapter 9, "Refusal of suitable employment"). Restricted availability

It often happens that a claimant's availability for work falls short of what has been described as the standard availability. This is referred to as restricted availability.

The concept of a reasonable period of time has been well established by jurisprudence and practice over the years. The philosophy behind it is to give claimants, whose availability for work is restricted in some way, a reasonable chance to explore the employment opportunities within their own expectations and capacity, after which they would be required to remove those restrictions or risk being disentitled for failing to prove availability.

This concept of a reasonable period of time is a derivative of the explicit rule provided in the legislative provisions dealing with refusal of work. There is no mathematical formula to determine the duration of a reasonable period of time; therefore the specific circumstances and level of restriction for each individual must considered.

10.4.2 Warning to claimant

If the claimant does not place any restrictions on their availability, the question of a reasonable period of time does not arise. That claimant’s statements regarding their availability can be accepted to prove availability throughout the duration of their benefit period. However, where the claimant's availability is restricted in some way, the logical application of the concept of a reasonable period of time is to consider and allow a reasonable period of time to search for work within their restrictions. This period is provided to enable the claimant to explore the labour market and find an employment within those expectations and capabilities.

A determination that the chances of finding employment are limited in a particular case is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that a claimant is not available for work. It is the extent of the limitations that must be determined, i.e. the claimant's restricted availability should be compared to the standard availability for that type of employment, in order to assess the degree to which the chances of finding employment are jeopardized. The restrictions would be weighed against the likelihood of finding suitable employment, to determine what the length of the reasonable period should be.

Generally, a reasonable period of time, varying from a few weeks up to a maximum of 12 weeks, depending on the circumstances and the extent of the claimant’s restrictions, should be granted. This period can then be increased or shortened depending on additional factors to be discussed under some of the following headings.

The reasonable period begins with the start of the benefit period or date of renewal. Any subsequent week during which the claimant is incapable of work or not available for work for any reason is included in the reasonable period of time allowed.

Where a claimant's availability is restricted, the reasonable period of time will be based largely on how much time has elapsed since the start of their claim and the possibilities of the claimant obtaining employment. Given the various factors and considerations at issue, a claimant is not expected to determine what their own reasonable period of time ought to be or what effect this reasonable period of time has on their entitlement to benefits.

Although it is not mandatory under the Act, the Commission will try, whenever possible, to inform the claimant, whose availability is restricted in some way, of the reasonable period of time allowed to explore the labour market within their expectations and capabilities, so that the claimant can make the required adjustments to their restrictions to prove availability. This would be even more appropriate in the case where the claimant, by continuing to receive benefits, is led to believe that their search for employment or the conditions placed on the acceptance of employment are acceptable.

The objective is to clearly inform claimants of their expectations and, if applicable, the reasonable period of time during which they can limit their availability to employment within their restrictions.

It may happen that the reasonable period is about to terminate, or has already terminated when the claimant is so informed by the Commission; the claimant may then be provided with a short period to comply with their obligation regarding their job search. Two weeks could be allowed to enable them to correct the situation of availability which is at issue. This period would only be given if there is an indication that the claimant intends to broaden their availability and to modify the conditions initially set.

The pertinent labour market information, as well as the information provided to the claimant as to the reasonable period of time with respect to their situation, should be clearly documented in the claimant's file. Finally, it is not a matter of automatically accepting subsequent actions or statements by the claimant after being informed of their responsibilities. The agent should follow up with the claimant at a later date to ensure they fully understand and are complying with their obligations for job search and availability. Such actions or statements are subject to the usual rules of assessing credibility. (Digest 10.3.0, "Credibility" to 10.3.3, "Change in Attitude";)

The intent of providing a warning is to ensure fairness in the adjudication of EI claims, and applies to claimants who are and continue to be capable of and available for work. It does not apply to claimants who have no intent, possibility or capability of accepting employment, or even to claimants who have set conditions on accepting employment that are so restrictive that they cannot reasonably expect to find work within those restrictions. These claimants cannot be considered available for work.

Finally, the fact that a person not available for work for one reason or another has not been warned to expand their job search cannot make this person entitled to benefits or require the Commission to review its decision disentitling the claimant because of unavailability.

10.4.3 Restrictions

Restrictions fall into two categories depending on whether they are voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary restriction consists of a demand arising out of one's own choice, while an involuntary restriction is a constraint over which the individual really has no control. Both types of restrictions must be taken into account when determining a claimant’s availability for work.

Whether they are voluntary or involuntary, restrictions have the same effect in that they reduce the chances of obtaining employment. However, looked at in another way, voluntary restrictions are clearly different from involuntary restrictions, in that the former generally cast doubt on the claimant's eagerness to find work, while the latter may exist regardless of the desire or need to obtain employment. This distinction may support the view that in principle a longer reasonable period of time may be allowed in the case of an involuntary restriction.

10.4.4 Voluntary restrictions

The first question to determine is whether the claimant's expectations are clearly restrictions or just preferences. It is quite normal for an unemployed person to be more interested in and to prefer employment in the same occupation in which they previously worked, and which would pay as high a wage as possible. Such interest should not necessarily be construed as a restriction.

Restrictions of a voluntary nature generally relate to type of work, wages or salary, hours of work, commuting distance and the type of industry involved. These restrictions are detailed later on in this chapter. Once the restrictions have been spelled out and the extent of one's availability has been determined, the chances of obtaining employment within those restrictions will be assessed as accurately as possible.

10.4.5 Involuntary restrictions

An involuntary restriction refers to a circumstance over which the individual has no control. It may be: of a physical nature, such as partial disability or pregnancy (Digest 10.11 "Health and physical capabilities)" of a domestic nature, such as an obligation for which the claimant is personally responsible, an illness of a spouse or family member (Digest 10.8 "Hours of work; family obligations and religious beliefs"); imposed by union rules, such as possible disciplinary action or expulsion (Digest 10.7.3 "Union hiring halls"); of a personal nature, such as imprisonment (Digest 10.12.7 "Imprisonment") or moral or religious convictions (Digest 10.8 “Hours of work; family obligations and religious beliefs").

A domestic responsibility for which suitable arrangements could probably be made if some efforts were made by the individual, is considered to be of a voluntary restrictions rather than involuntary. This is usually the case with household duties and child care arrangements.

Factors such as a handicap, advanced age, lack of education or training and very limited knowledge of the language spoken, are not considered as restrictions and should not be held against claimants in assessing their availability for work. As well, a claimant stranded at home for a few days solely because of a snowstorm, should not be considered not available.

10.4.6 Factors affecting a reasonable period of time

Now that some consideration has been given to the distinction between voluntary and involuntary restrictions, as well as to the established work experience, the following are additional factors which may impact the length of the reasonable period of time allowed:

  • aggressive and exceptional efforts by the claimant to find work;
  • the claimant's expectations regarding job search exceed what is required to prove normal availability in that it extends beyond one's work area and even throughout the whole province of residence;

Here are the factors an agent may consider when determining that a shorter reasonable period of time or no reasonable period be allowed at all:

  • a lack of personal efforts to obtain employment;
  • leaving one's work area, especially claimants who move from an industrial centre to a rural area;
  • returning from a period of employment away from home in the case of a claimant whose home is in an area of no employment opportunities, unless that claimant remains available for work in the area where the employment was located;
  • the claimant leaves employment with one of the few local employers or acts in such a way as to provoke dismissal.

The fact that a reasonable period of time has been granted to a claimant to find work within their restrictions, this does not prevent a determination of non-availability if other factors of non-availability arise, for which a disentitlement from benefits would be imposed. i.e: claimant is on vacation.

[ July 2016 ]

[ January 2014 ]

Page details

Date modified: