| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire would have reversed the Board's decision merely because other decisions of Boards were not appealed by the CEIC. They were made by Boards differently constituted on the particular facts before them. No support for a conclusion that the decision was made capriciously.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
Summary:
Package deal offered to older employees of Massey-Ferguson to make way for younger people. The Board's finding that claimant left without just cause is supported by material before them and Umpire erred in law in substituting his own view. 6-week disqualification restored.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire would have reversed the Board's decision merely because other decisions of Boards were not appealed by the CEIC. They were made by Boards differently constituted on the particular facts before them. No support for a conclusion that the decision was made capriciously.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
As the wording of s.80 follows very closely that of ss.28(1) of the Federal Court Act, assistance can be obtained from the jurisprudence on the latter. It has been firmly established that the Court is not entitled to substitute its view of the facts of a case for that of the Tribunal. [p.4]
