Decision 25202
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 25202 | McGillis | English | 1994-09-09 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | No | N/A | - |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: |
|---|---|---|---|
| board of referees | errors in law | discretionary power |
Summary:
Reasons given by the CEIC in support of its refusal to extend the time period were insufficient to determine whether the discretionary decision was made judicially on the basis of relevant considerations. The Board therefore erred in law in saying that the decision was in accordance with the UI Act.