| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
for a spouse |
|
|
Summary:
The test was not who was paying who, but was claimant unemployed. Notwithstanding the perception of certain claimants that if a cheque is payable to someone else, that it is that someone else who is employed, the fact is that claimant was working: looking after rental of units.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
A reading of s.86 indicates that the power therein is fairly circumscribed. Indeed, case law directs an Umpire to enquire whether any new fact submitted was not available to the appellant and could not have been available after the exercise of due diligence to obtain it.
