Decision A-0248.01
Full Text of Decision A-0248.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Proof of misconduct is first a question of fact arising from the record as a whole and including the testimony given at the hearing. The absence of the transcript of the memoranda substantially limited a full assessment of the facts by the Umpire. The Court found that the record, as constituted, did not allow it to intervene on a finding of fact, and the application for judicial review was summarily dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Decision A-0500.01
Full Text of Decision A-0500.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Was the claimant’s right to natural justice infringed because of the lenghty delay (over 3 years) in hearing his appeal? Umpire did not state the legal principle upon which he concluded that there was a denial of natural justice. The FCA states that the claimant must demonstrate that the delay was unacceptable to the point of being so oppressive as to taint the proceedings. Held that there was no evidence which would justify a remedy under the principles of administrative law.
Decision A-0506.01
Full Text of Decision A-0506.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There was evidence before the Umpire that justified the decision he made. The Court can find no factual error or no error of law that would justify its intervention. The application for judicial review was summarily dismissed.
Decision 40641D
Full Text of Decision 40641D
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0500.01
Decision 50988
Full Text of Decision 50988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0248.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Decision 50047
Full Text of Decision 50047
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0506.01
Decision A-0130.96
Full Text of Decision A-0130.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Citing Joseph (A-636-85), Langlois (A-94-95), Choinière (A-471-95) and Fakhari (A-732-95), FCA ruled that to show misconduct and the link between misconduct and employment, it is not enough to raise the filing of criminal charges not yet proven at the time of separation from employment and to rely solely on the employer's speculations, with no further verification. Commission and, subsequently, the BOR and the Umpire cannot be allowed to be satisfied with an unverified, one-sided version of the facts from the employer regarding acts that, at the time the employer's decision was made, were merely unproven allegations. Commission can discharge its burden of proof more easily if the employer 's decision is made after the preliminary inquiry and, even more so, if it is made after the trial.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0732.95
Full Text of Decision A-0732.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Relying on Jewell (A-236-94), Umpire held that the claimant's failure to be truthful constitutes misconduct. The FCA was of the view that Jewell was not accurately reflecting the jurisprudence which had grown up around the concept of misconduct and that it could no longer be considered of any precedential value. An employer's subjective appreciation of the type of misconduct which warrants dismissal for just cause cannot be deemed binding on a BOR. The FCA did not believe that an employer's mere assurance that it believes the conduct in question is misconduct, and that it was the reason for termination of the employment, satisfies the onus of proof which rests on the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 26973
Full Text of Decision 26973
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0133.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Decision A-0133.95
Full Text of Decision A-0133.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The majority of the members of the Board based their decision on the evidence as it had been presented to them and the notes of the dissenting member concur with this sufficiently. The Court has determined that the umpire was not in a position to contest their conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Decision A-0190.95
Full Text of Decision A-0190.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The findings of the BOR are on credibility. They had the unique opportunity of hearing and assessing the credibility of the appellant. Unless the Board erred under S.80 of the Act, an Umpire should not intervene in the appeal process. The FCA did not disturb the Umpire's decision.
Decision 27031
Full Text of Decision 27031
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0190.95
Decision 31899
Full Text of Decision 31899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0130.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0084.95
Full Text of Decision A-0084.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire did not identify any reviewable error in reaching his decision to reverse the BOR's decision. He merely disagreed with the factual findings of the Board, something he was not at liberty to do as there was sufficient evidence before the Board uponwhich its decision could be properly based.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 26619
Full Text of Decision 26619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0084.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0509.94
Full Text of Decision A-0509.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire reversed that conclusion (finding based on credibility relating to a suit for wrongful dismissal and a 3-year antedate), one of mixed fact and law, without giving any indication that the Board had committed legal error in reaching its conclusion. He committed reversible error in doing so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
Decision A-0087.94
Full Text of Decision A-0087.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in not having regard to whether the alleged error made by the Board was properly reviewable. The Umpire should have considered whether, on the evidence before it, a Board could reasonably have reached the conclusion it did even if he might have reached a different conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 23945
Full Text of Decision 23945
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0087.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0085.94
Full Text of Decision A-0085.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The application is allowed, the decision of the Umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to him to be decided on the basis that the decision of the Board was not vitiated by any error of the kind mentioned in s. 80 of the UI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Decision 23944
Full Text of Decision 23944
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0085.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Decision A-0023.94
Full Text of Decision A-0023.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire found no error on the part of the Board and, indeed, expressed agreement with the conclusion that claimant had voluntarily quit without just cause. He nevertheless rescinded the disqualification. In the absence of a finding of error, he has no jurisdiction to vary the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 23731
Full Text of Decision 23731
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0023.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 22114
Full Text of Decision 22114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1669.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
Decision A-1669.92
Full Text of Decision A-1669.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision was not erroneous in law, according to the Umpire, nor capricious or perverse. The Umpire's decision should therefore be quashed, and the matter decided anew while taking for granted that the Board's decision was based on fact and law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
Decision A-0018.93
Full Text of Decision A-0018.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It could not be said that the Board of Referees had committed any error of law in rendering their decision. It followed that the Chief Umpire could not, without exceeding his jurisdiction, set aside its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 12129
Full Text of Decision 12129
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0707.86
Decision A-0707.86
Full Text of Decision A-0707.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
According to the Board, 8 out of 10 employees had been recalled, consequently ending the strike. As per the Umpire, it was 8 out of 18. The evidence did not indicate that the Board committed an error of the type specified in 80(c) which could be a basis for Umpire to intervene.
Decision A-0766.85
Full Text of Decision A-0766.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire set aside the Board's decision, being of the opinion that claimant did not have good cause for the whole delay in making a claim. Held that the Board did not err in law nor base its decision on an erroneous and capricious finding of fact.
Decision 11169
Full Text of Decision 11169
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0766.85
Decision 11210
Full Text of Decision 11210
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It has been clearly established that a strict interpretation must be given to s.80 and that an Umpire should not interfere with the Board's decision unless it clearly infringes one of the provisions of that section.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There is a tendency for the CEIC to argue that the Umpire's jurisdiction under s.80 is comparable to that of the Federal Court under s.28. One must not lose sight of the fact that there is nothing in the Federal Court Act comparable to s.78, 81 and 86. Jurisdiction to be assessed in the context.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision A-0595.84
Full Text of Decision A-0595.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There are 3 conditions precedent to 80(c): (a) an erroneous finding of fact; (b) made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for material; and (c) the decision must be based on the erroneous finding. [p._4-5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-1239.82
Full Text of Decision A-1239.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, claimant was unemployed even though he worked the full week at his brother's new gas station, which he did in the evening without any pay in the hope of creating a job for himself. Judgment reversed, decision of board was not vitiated by any of the errors in s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision A-1261.83
Full Text of Decision A-1261.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
An Umpire is bound, on appeal from a Board's decision, to deal with it on the grounds prescribed by s.80. He is not entitled simply to substitute his decision for that of the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
earnings |
|
Decision A-0548.83
Full Text of Decision A-0548.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the Umpire substituted his opinoin for that of the board in respect of whether [there had been a change in duties] that could justify leaving voluntarily. He therefore exceeded the power conferred on him by s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
appeal system |
calculation of delay |
|
| umpires |
judgment in written form |
a requirement |
|
Decision A-0813.82
Full Text of Decision A-0813.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire reassessed reasons for delay and reversed assessment of facts in order to allow antedating. Umpire can reverse decision of a board only where there is one of the errors described in s. 80.
Decision A-0852.82
Full Text of Decision A-0852.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire was of opinion that board had been too harsh in refusing antedating, since insured had acted reasonably. Judgment reversed because Umpire may intervene only if board committed one of the errors described in s. 80.
Decision A-0720.81
Full Text of Decision A-0720.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire reversed the board's decision after having the insured testify and assessing his credibility. Matter referred back to Umpire because he may set aside decision of a board only where decision is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0547.81
Full Text of Decision A-0547.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
An Umpire may allow an appeal from a decision of a board only where the decision of the board is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0636.81
Full Text of Decision A-0636.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
An Umpire may allow an appeal from a decision of a board only for one of the reasons set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0437.81
Full Text of Decision A-0437.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Decision set aside and matter referred back to Umpire. Decision of board may be set aside only where it is vitiated by error set out in s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
Decision A-0453.81
Full Text of Decision A-0453.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire may allow appeal only in cases where board's decision is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0357.81
Full Text of Decision A-0357.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Where claimant left voluntarily without just cause, Umpire may not substitute his opinion for that of the board unless the board's decision is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision A-0768.80
Full Text of Decision A-0768.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Decision set aside and matter referred back to Umpire to be decided on assumption that appeal may be allowed only for one of the reasons set out in s. 80.
