Decision 10602

Summary:

The Commission is expected to submit jurisprudence supporting the decision and that which does not. In a court of law, counsel who do not do this are considered in breach of a fundamental principle of ethics and of their duty. More pressing to apply this to a Board. [p._14]

---

Summary:

Sickness benefits denied from date refugee work permit expired. 2 questions to examine: (1) willingness to work if not ill and (2) prospects of work if not ill. High probability that work permit would have been renewed and work continued if not ill. [p.19]

---

Summary:

The chairperson obtained a circular from the Commission and applied its contents. I accept claimant's argument that the Board abdicated its decision-making responsibilities and did not make an independent decision. It deferred to the Commission's decision. [p._15]

---

Summary:

The Commission anticipated oral evidence to be adduced in respect of the merits of the issue, rather than the conduct of the proceedings. I do not think the distinction matters. In either case, the Umpire is entitled to hear viva voce evidence to apply s.80(c).

---

Summary:

Chairperson absented herself twice to check matters with Commission and returned with copy of circular circulated to members but denied to claimant's representative until proceedings initiated under Freedom of Information Act. Clearly a denial of natural justice.

---

Summary:

Very high standard of fairness required. Closer to traditional concept of judicial decision making body than administrative. Rights of claimant are being determined as a result of having made payments in UI fund. They may be essential for claimant's basic needs. [p. 13]

---

Summary:

The chairperson obtained a circular from the Commission and applied its contents. I accept claimant's argument that the Board abdicated its decision-making responsibilities and did not make an independent decision. It deferred to the Commission's decision. [p._15]

---