| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Dictionary emphasizes willful or wanton disregard of employer's interest. The words 'his own' imply responsibility and intention or recklessness. Parallelism with 'voluntarily'. The Umpire correctly stated that mental element of wilfulness is required.
It is argued that the meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law. This question was put to rest in BEDELL where the Court said that the construction of the word 'misconduct' is a question of law.
The act complained of must have been wilful or at least of such a careless or negligent nature that one could say that the employee wilfully disregarded the effects his or her actions would have on job performance.
Since claimant's admission of impairment was admission of a fact only, and not of the requisite mental state, the Board considered proof of a mental element unnecessary, as if ss. 41(1) did not require wilfulness or recklessness. Error of law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire went too far in her characterization. One should not confuse a certain action and the effects thereof. Only the action needs be wilful even if effects are not intended. Impairment is not an action, it is the effect of an action.
Flight attendant who took medication not prescribed for her. Impairment alone is not sufficient to show misconduct if it is inadvertant and not the result of wilful conduct. Mental intention to be addressed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Summary:
Once the Umpire has correctly found that the Board has made an error of law, the question whether there was evidence which could reasonably allow the Board to conclude as it did no longer arises.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Since claimant's admission of impairment was admission of a fact only, and not of the requisite mental state, the Board considered proof of a mental element unnecessary, so that ss. 28(1) relating to misconduct does not require wilfulness or recklessness. Error of law.
It is argued that the meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law. This question was put to rest in BEDELL where the Court said that the construction of the word 'misconduct' is a question of law.
When a word appears in a statutory context, it is for a Court to interpret that word as a matter of law. The construction of a statutory word is a matter of law; its application to particular facts is a matter of fact.
