| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Umpire held that the BOR erred by applying opposing tests. The words "should have known" is clearly an objective test and had the effect of neutralizing, or even destroying, the subjective words "the claimant knew" and because the objective test is the last test applied by the Board that is the test upon which the Board purported to rely to resolve the issue. Claimant's appeal was allowed. The Commission appealed the Umpire's decision to the Federal Court as his decision goes against all established jurisprudence on similar issues.
