| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Although the word "appeal" is used in s.80, the substance of the Umpire's jurisdiction is identical with that of this Court. The proceeding before the Umpire is not an appeal in the usual sense of that word but a circumscribed review. [p._4]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There are 3 conditions precedent to 80(c): (a) an erroneous finding of fact; (b) made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for material; and (c) the decision must be based on the erroneous finding. [p._4-5]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Summary:
Hearings before Boards and Board decisions are intended to be an informal process for resolving the problems of ordinary people. Decisions not to be read microscopically, see BOULIS. Use of word "appeal" in s.80 is a good indication. [p._6-7]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Not allowed to reverse a finding of fact even if against the weight of evidence. The proper test is whether there was any evidence upon which the Board could have found as it did or whether it made any mistake of principle. [p. 5-6]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
Summary:
Having stated their finding on the central question of fact material to their decision, the Board was not strictly required also to state findings on all of the constituent subquestions. [p. 6]
