| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR concluded that the legal test of wilfulness and careless neglect that was required to show misconduct had not been clearly met and accepted the claimant's explanation that his conduct was a "first time error in judgment". The Umpire considered that the Board did not exclude the employer's evidence but rather preferred to place more weight on the claimant's evidence than that of the employer. The Umpire concluded that the Board provided reasons for its preference, was aware of the proper legal test for misconduct and correctly determined that the elements of the legal test had not been met. The Court concluded that the Board and the Umpire were correct in their stated understanding of the legal test and could find no reviewable error in their application of the test to this case.
