| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant on unpaid sick leave from 8-5 to 1-8. What is important in light of para. 46.1(2)(a) as it now stands is not so much that remuneration was not received for 7-86, but that throughout the month she remained employed under a contract which had not been terminated.
Permanent N.S. teacher on paid sick leave to 7-5-86. On unpaid leave to 1-8-86 when contract renewed. The only events for terminating the contract were as set forth therein and in the provincial statute. No action to terminate of the kind authorized was taken.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
It is argued that para. 46.1(2)(a) treats ill and disabled teachers differently than ill or disabled employees are treated by the Act. The distinction relates to employment rather than to a personal characteristic of the claimant. Not the kind of discrimination envisaged by the Charter.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Following the Board's decision, a letter was received from the employer. The Umpire used it to allow the case. He was not entitled to do so. Those proceedings were not de novo. They were an "appeal". S. 80 and 81 do not empower the Umpire to receive new evidence.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Following the Board's decision, a letter was received from the employer. The Umpire used it to allow the case. He was not entitled to do so. Those proceedings were not de novo. They were an "appeal". S. 80 and 81 do not empower the Umpire to receive new evidence.
