The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Both Parents of Twins Entitled to EI Benefits

by David Doorey September 18, 2009
written by David Doorey September 18, 2009

   There was an interesting Board of Referees decision last week involving a claim by parents of twins for unemployment insurance benefits.  The Globe and Mail did a front page story on it this morning.  That itself is unusual, since nobody  pays much attention to Board of Referee decisions, except the claimants  of course.  The decision may be appealed to the next level in the system (the “Umpire”, who is a federal court judge) by the Commission.  (If you want to search Board of Referee decisions (“CUBS”), or look at an index of cases, look here)
The Board of Referees decision is quite well reasoned, which is  not always the case in Board decisions in my experience.  Here’s the issue. The parents had twins.  The mother filed an EI claim for one child, and the father for the other child.  The EI Commission denied the claim for the father, ruling that only one parent receive the benefit at a time, to a maximum claim of 35 weeks total per couple.  Since the mother was already receiving benefits for the children, the father was not permitted to simultaneously claim benefits.
The father appealed successfully to the Board of Referees.  The Board noted that the pregnancy and the post-birth period had been extremely difficult for the parents, and that caring for both children (and herself) proved too onerous for the mother alone.  The key provision is Section 12 of the Employment Insurance Act.  The Board rejected the argument that the language  in that section provides for benefits only to one parent in the case of twins.  Rather, according to the Board, it provides that an eligible claimant (both parents were eligible) can claim up to 35 weeks for the care of a child.  Since both eligible parents were caring for different children, both claims could proceed at the same time.  Insofar as there may be ambiguity in the language on this point, the Board noted (correctly) that since the EI Act is intended to provide a social benefit, it should be interpreted liberally in favour of the claimants.  The result is that parents of twins are eligible to receive up to the maximum claim of 35 weeks EI benefits.   
Does anyone think this decision is wrong, either legally or as a principle of social policy?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
When is cursing at your Employer Wilful Misconduct?
next post
Everybody Sigh… York Faculty Ratify New Collective Agreement

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.