| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
In ROBERTS and TAYLOR, this Court held that an appeal to an Umpire is not an appeal in the usual sense or a trial de novo, but a proceeding in the nature of judicial review. The test is whether there was any evidence upon which the Board could have found as they did without error in principle.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
Summary:
The conclusion of the Board was that claimant, a single mother, had left without just cause her employment in Toronto and moved to New Brunswick without first having made reasonable attempts to find alternative accommodation. This conclusion was consistent with the decision of this Court in TANGUAY.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
It is clear that the Umpire substituted the Board's opinion for his own. It is equally clear that he was entitled to do so if and only if he concluded that the claimant had shown that the decision of the Board had been vitiated by one of the grounds enumerated in para. 80(a), (b) and (c) of the Act.
The Umpire fell into error by substituting the Board's views of the facts for his own. Whether the quitting was voluntary or not, the referees had before them the several explanations of the claimant, and this was a conclusion of fact which was open to them on the record.
