| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
The claimant maintained that the Umpire went beyond his jurisdiction in ruling on the question of entitlement to EI benefit and the penalties imposed, though the only question submitted to him concerned the BOR’s power to order that the Commission’s decision be referred back to it for re-examination. FCA noted that this argument of the claimant ignored the fact that the Umpire had also dealt with a second appeal involving the same parties, and had ruled on the two substantive issues. FCA therefore found that even though it would have been preferable, from a technical point of view, for the Umpire to write his decision on the merits in the context of the second appeal rather than the first, the claimant had suffered no prejudice because the two appeals were before the Umpire, and the Umpire also had to rule of the merits of the BOR’s decision regarding entitlement and penalties.
