| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 6 of the 10 weeks required to qualify. The Umpire allowed the case because refusal here would defeat the intent of the legislation although the letter of the law was not met. Error in law. The Interpretation Act does not allow departure from a clear provision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 6 of the 10 weeks required to qualify. The Umpire allowed the case because refusal here would defeat the intent of the legislation although the letter of the law was not met. Error in law. The Interpretation Act does not allow departure from a clear provision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 6 of the 10 weeks required to qualify. The Umpire allowed the case because refusal here would defeat the intent of the legislation although the letter of the law was not met. Error in law. The Interpretation Act does not allow departure from a clear provision.
