Decision A-1449.92

Summary:

Rate reduced for the duration of the benefit period. Nothing in the record shows that the discretion was ever exercised by the Commission. The Commission had an obligation in law to exercise the discretion vested in it in respect of the period during which the reduced rate would extend. Once the Umpire decided that the ss. 30(7) discretion had not been exercised at all, he ought to have referred the matter back to the Board with directions that the Board should remit the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration on the basis that it exercise its discretion under ss. 30(7). The Umpire erred in finding that the reduced rate should have terminated on 31-8-91. Ss. 30(7) confers a discretion on the Commission. The Umpire is not allowed to exercise a discretion that the legislation explicitly confers on the Commission itself.

---

Summary:

The Umpire erred in finding that the reduced rate should have terminated on 31-8-91. Ss. 30(7) confers a discretion on the Commission. The Umpire is not allowed to exercise a discretion that the legislation explicitly confers on the Commission itself. Once the Umpire decided that the ss. 30(7) discretion had not been exercised at all, he ought to have referred the matter back to the Board with directions that the Board should remit the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration on the basis that it exercise its discretion under ss. 30(7).

---

Summary:

Took leave of absence in order to take a course for 7 months. Changed her mind a few weeks later. She argues that she did not leave her employment because she only took leave of absence. The reason she was not working was that she had voluntarily taken leave of absence.

---