| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
According to another tribunal there was misconduct but the penalty imposed by employer was too severe: dismissal replaced by 3 month suspension. This decision not binding on me. It is a new fact that is added to other evidence.
Award of court delivered after board's decision. According to PÉRUSSE, it is up to board to decide misconduct on the evidence presented and it in no way depends on any decision of another court. Does not permit review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
Summary:
Dismissal changed to 3 month suspension by tribunal. Insured did not lose employment; deserved only suspension. On other hand, suffered interruption of earnings and there was interruption of earnings within meaning of subs. 2(1).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Is employee subject to suspension presumed to have lost employment within meaning of 28(1)? It seems to me that during period of suspension deemed to have lost employment for purposes of Act and subject to disqualification.
Consenting to a suspension is, in my view, prima facie an admission of misconduct and in fact prima facie proof thereof. [obiter dictum]
