| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
specific clause |
|
Summary:
Where the particular event in ss. 38(2) is found to occur, it takes precedence over the general imposition of joint liability in s. 35 and 37, in accordance with the traditional rule of statutory interpretation by which a particular enactment is operative over a general one in the same statute.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
We are all agreed that, where the particular event contemplated by ss. 38(2) is found to occur, whether or not liability to the Commission is explicitly regulated by the settlement, that subsection takes precedence over the general imposition of joint liability provided by s. 35 and 37.
The Commission argued that s. 37 must be looked to before s. 38, and that if the two criteria therein are met, an employer becomes liable to pay remuneration to an employee and does actually so pay, the Commission then has the right to proceed against either employer or employee. Argument dismissed.
The Board found that the amount of UI paid to claimant was taken into account by the employer to reduce the amount which it would otherwise be liable to pay by reason of wrongful dismissal. Therefore, there is no obligation against claimant under s. 37. Ss. 38(2) applies said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.
