| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the Board of Referees erred in law since it did not properly consider the evidence of the claimant’s employment in previous years. He found that the claimant had certainly demonstrated that she had a history of work and school leading to the conclusion that she could fulfil the conditions set out in s. 14(a) of the Act. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision since he had the authority to intervene and decide on all the issues of law and fact.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the Board of Referees erred in law since it did not properly consider the evidence of the claimant’s employment in previous years. He found that the claimant had certainly demonstrated that she had a history of work and school leading to the conclusion that she could fulfil the conditions set out in s. 14(a) of the Act. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision since he had the authority to intervene and decide on all the issues of law and fact.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the Board of Referees erred in law since it did not properly consider the evidence of the claimant’s employment in previous years. He found that the claimant had certainly demonstrated that she had a history of work and school leading to the conclusion that she could fulfil the conditions set out in s. 14(a) of the Act. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision since he had the authority to intervene and decide on all the issues of law and fact.
