| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
The Board allowed the appeal for no other reason than perceived consistency with previous Board and Commission decisions. It did not identify those decisions and failed to make a finding. It did not exercise its jurisdiction in finding that they were bound by those decisions.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
A Board, like an Umpire, has no equitable jurisdiction under the Act. See GRANGER. To the extent that the Board's decision reflects equitable reasons, that decision would clearly be made in excess of its jurisdiction and would therefore be an error in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Reg. 58(13)(a) relates to situations where monies are paid or payable in respect of a specific vacation period taken in the past (see PREUSCHE and MCMASTER) and must necessarily refer to a past period. Here the vacation was not taken and reg. 58(13)(c) applies.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Laid off 7-2-86. Returned 20-10-86. Vacation pay cheques prepared in week 6-7-86 held for employees on layoff until return to work unless requested. Monies received by claimant 10-11-86. Normal vacation period: end of 7-86. Reg. 58(13)(c), not 58(13)(a), applies effective 6-7-86.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
A Board, like an Umpire, has no equitable jurisdiction under the Act. See GRANGER. To the extent that the Board's decision reflects equitable reasons, that decision would clearly be made in excess of its jurisdiction and would therefore be an error in law.
