particularly re-training, following a "constructive dismissal" situation and in particular one involving a combination of escalating wages arrears and less than 20 weeks of insurable employment, such as Mr. Chisholm's. In addition, there is no clause in the Act which limits the benefit period in this type of circumstance to the usual regular benefit period based on the actual number of weeks worked and the regional unemployment rate; for obvious reasons such a rule, or any interpretation of the Act which implies that such a rule should apply, is (a) contrary to natural justice and (b) creates a system dysfunction in which the person affected is, in effect, disbarred from re-training and suitable employment even though he/she left a previous employer who was not paying for work done. ( In Mr. Chisholm's case, the situation was aggravated by the Commission's original contention that he had "insufficient insurable weeks" plus "weak labour force attachment"

6. Mr. Chisholm is a mechanical engineer. He accepted the position, as a painter, with Dean 's Professional Painting Inc., in August 1994, because there was no other work available to him; this followed a long period of efforts to find suitable employment (as an engineer) both in Canada and elsewhere and these efforts extended at least as far back as July 1992. In other words, he took employment which is not even considered "suitable" (for the purposes of sub-section 27(2) of the Act) in an attempt to provide income to support himself and his family, and to establish sufficient weeks of insurable employment to qualify (according to the usual rules) for "ON-SITE" and other re-training programs. Thus Mr. Chisholm, for this and other reasons, has far exceeded his obligations under the Act in terms of being available for work and in terms of efforts to qualify for assistance to upgrade his skills for the purpose of improving his prospects of his future re-employment as an engineer - with all that this means in terms of his quality of life, future contributions to society at a level commensurate with his qualifications and experience, and future contributions to tax revenues and U.I. premiums.

7. Mr. Chisholm's interest in "ON-SITE" was made abundantly clear in the Docket of Appeal to the Umpire dated May 25th 1995, and supporting documents (Human Resources Development Canada file no. 4210-4(C) for Mr. Robert T. Chisholm, S.I.N. 262-644495).

Thus both before and after CUB 28929 was issued, the Commission was fully aware of Mr. Chisholm's interest in "ON-SITE" and re-training generally. But the Commission took no account of this and other relevant factors when making its determination.

B. For reasons which should now be clear, the Commission did not in fact make an "appropriate determination".

A "determination", in Mr. Chisholm's case, can only be legitimately considered "appropriate", if it includes, inter alia, adequate provisions for re-training, either through "ON-SITE" or some other means, for facilitating entry into suitable employment as an engineer and preferably including a cast-iron guarantee of such employment.