| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Burden of proof on CEIC rather than employer since misconduct must be examined within meaning of Act and not meaning as understood by employer. CEIC must not simply make a few general assertions.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
conflict of interest |
|
|
Summary:
Income tax auditor used knowledge to evade taxation. Long list of breaches of conduct submitted by employer held not conclusive. Case turns on facts.
