| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is incumbent on the person alleging such misconduct to prove it. It is the responsibility of the Commission to establish positively the existence of misconduct. If there is a reasonable doubt, the issue must be resolved in favour of the claimant.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
confidential information |
|
|
Summary:
The only evidence the Commission had of the claimant's misconduct [theft] was the affidavit of an employee. This document was not submitted to the Board. That affidavit was essential to discharge the Commission's onus. Without it, a finding of misconduct had no basis in fact.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
The Commission had every opportunity at the hearing to present all the evidence. It chose not to produce the affidavit. I see no reason to refer the matter back for rehearing in order to provide the Commission with another opportunity to do what it could have done.
