| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. Penalty also imposed for 9 false or misleading statements. Referring to previous jurisprudence, Umpire held that the questions on the cards were quite simple. The Umpire recognizes that the question "were you working" might be a problem to people with language difficulties, or a minimal education, but one cannot attribute other than a willful action on the part of someone who has been engaged in the business world for some ten years. Claimant's appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. Penalty also imposed for 9 false or misleading statements. Referring to previous jurisprudence, Umpire held that the questions on the cards were quite simple. The Umpire recognizes that the question "were you working" might be a problem to people with language difficulties, or a minimal education, but one cannot attribute other than a willful action on the part of someone who has been engaged in the business world for some ten years. Claimant's appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
