| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law or declined to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to calculate insurable earnings and resulting rate of benefit. To this end, the Board may refer questions to the Commission for investigation and report pursuant to reg. 65.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in simply endorsing the decision on the basis that "the Commission has acted responsibly". This is of no direct relevance. It is the correctness of that decision which the Board is obliged to determine.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
While accepting that the Commission was correct in its calculation, the Board states no evidence upon which it has reached that conclusion. Such failure is an error of law and gives rise to an inference that the Board did not have regard to material before it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in simply endorsing the decision on the basis that "the Commission has acted responsibly". This is of no direct relevance. It is the correctness of that decision which the Board is obliged to determine.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Board erred in law or declined to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to calculate insurable earnings and resulting rate of benefit. To this end, the Board may refer questions to the Commission for investigation and report pursuant to reg. 65.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
Summary:
While accepting that the Commission was correct in its calculation, the Board states no evidence upon which it has reached that conclusion. Such failure is an error of law and gives rise to an inference that the Board did not have regard to material before it.
