| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 13 false or misleading statements. The claimant admitted having devoted all his time to his business and not making job searches, whereas on his cards, he said that he was not working and was available. Umpire found that the BOR had clearly erred in law in deciding that he had not knowingly made false or misleading statements.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 13 false or misleading statements. The claimant admitted having devoted all his time to his business and not making job searches, whereas on his cards, he said that he was not working and was available. Umpire found that the BOR had clearly erred in law in deciding that he had not knowingly made false or misleading statements.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 13 false or misleading statements. The claimant admitted having devoted all his time to his business and not making job searches, whereas on his cards, he said that he was not working and was available. Umpire found that the BOR had clearly erred in law in deciding that he had not knowingly made false or misleading statements.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant informed on 18-07-95 that he was not eligible for the SEA program because he had been operating his business since 04-03-94 and one of the conditions for participation in this program is that the business must not already be in operation. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law in reversing this decision since only the Commission has the discretionary power to accept or refuse a claimant's participation in the SEA program.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant informed on 18-07-95 that he was not eligible for the SEA program because he had been operating his business since 04-03-94 and one of the conditions for participation in this program is that the business must not already be in operation. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law in reversing this decision since only the Commission has the discretionary power to accept or refuse a claimant's participation in the SEA program.
