| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The mischief which the legislation was intended to suppress was to prevent payment of benefits to people in certain jobs under yearly contract and not that unemployed teachers might receive benefit during the summer, said the Umpire [p. 13]. No basis toattack this decision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
It was argued that reg. 46.1(1) failed to accord to teachers equality before the law and the protection of the law, in contravention of the Bill of Rights. There are absolutely no facts disclosed which would support such contention.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
non-teaching period |
defined |
|
Summary:
I have not the slightest doubt that the non-teaching period mentioned in reg. 46.1 refers to July and August in any given year, said the Umpire [p. 13]. There is no basis to attack the decision of the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Summary:
While I accept the SC decision in DICK [monies paid in March upon leave were not a payment for the summer], it ought not to apply to cases other than where there has been a withdrawal of services prior to the end of the term, said Umpire [p. 14]. No basis to attack this decision.
Ontario teacher who ceased work 30-6-83. There is not the slightest doubt that the contract continued to 31-8-83 and that claimant was paid for July and August under its terms. Not essential to rely on reg. 46.1, said the Umpire [p. 15-16]. No basis to attack this decision.
