Decision A-0454.02
Full Text of Decision A-0454.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The Commission presented only one report card from each claim in the Appeal docket and suggested that the BOR and the Umpire could assume that all the other cards were the same. At the re-hearing before a new BOR, the Commission filed all the report cards. The FCA found that it would be unfair to remit a matter to a BOR in order for one party to file new evidence which could have been filed earlier and if evidence was deliberately or accidentally withheld, it is not a reason to order a "de novo".
Decision 53434
Full Text of Decision 53434
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0454.02
Decision A-0586.98
Full Text of Decision A-0586.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The second Board of Referees was not bound by the decision of the earlier BOR. It had to consider the evidence before it. The file before the second BOR contained evidence on the basis of which the BOR could decide as it did, without committing an error of principle. Decided by the FCA that the Umpire did not err by not intervening in the BOR's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision 41785
Full Text of Decision 41785
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0586.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision 37863
Full Text of Decision 37863
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
A hearing before an Umpire is not a hearing de novo but an appeal and not an occasion for an Umpire to substitute his views for those of the Board on issues of facts. It doesn't matter that the Umpire agrees or not, as long as the BOR had some evidence before it which would justify its decision if it believed same.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Decision 35066
Full Text of Decision 35066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The "appeal" to an umpire is similar to an application for judicial review. It is not a trial de novo; rather, the "appeal" allows the umpire to make the decision which ought to have been made by the referees. The FCA has recently confirmed these powersin Morin (A-453-95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
| antedate |
applicability |
length of delay |
|
Decision A-0600.93
Full Text of Decision A-0600.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
In ROBERTS and TAYLOR, this Court held that an appeal to an Umpire is not an appeal in the usual sense or a trial de novo, but a proceeding in the nature of judicial review. The test is whether there was any evidence upon which the Board could have found as they did without error in principle.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 22912
Full Text of Decision 22912
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0600.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 22053
Full Text of Decision 22053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Umpire appeals are not hearings de novo. While I might well have been persuaded to have come to the contrary conclusion on the facts, and probably would have, that is no justification for overturning the Board's factual determination where there is someevidence reasonably capable of supporting it.
Decision 21029
Full Text of Decision 21029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Principle well established: an Umpire appeal is not a hearing de novo with the result that an Umpire should be extremely loath to overturn a Board's decision based on its findings of fact, even though the Umpire might have been persuaded to come to the opposite conclusion.
Decision 20371
Full Text of Decision 20371
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
An Umpire appeal is not a hearing de novo and an Umpire should be extremely loath to reverse a decision based on a finding of fact, where there is evidence to reasonably support it. While I might have been disposed to have decided differently, that is not a valid ground.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0681.90
Full Text of Decision A-0681.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Following the Board's decision, a letter was received from the employer. The Umpire used it to allow the case. He was not entitled to do so. Those proceedings were not de novo. They were an "appeal". S. 80 and 81 do not empower the Umpire to receive new evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 14246A
Full Text of Decision 14246A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0681.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 18020
Full Text of Decision 18020
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
I wish to underline that a hearing before the Umpire is not a hearing de novo. The Umpire's authority is pursuant to s.80. The Board of Referees are the finders of fact and best able to judge credibility.
Decision 16179
Full Text of Decision 16179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The Crown Attorney wanted to have witnesses heard to comfirm the credibility of the insured. This is not a de novo trial. The absurd or arbitrary conclusion must be drawn from the documents in the file. The judge does not have to substitute his opinion to that of the Board in matters of credibility.
Decision 12992
Full Text of Decision 12992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
As has frequently been said the hearing before the Umpire is not a trial de novo and the Umpire's conclusion must be based on the Board's findings on the evidence presented before it. Not desirable to return case to Board for further evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 12516
Full Text of Decision 12516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
It is settled beyond doubt or question that an appeal to an Umpire is not a trial de novo calling for a complete retrial of the case. [p. 9]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Decision 12162
Full Text of Decision 12162
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
I am in complete agreement with this interpretation of the law: as an Umpire one should not, except in unusual circumstances, retry the matter where the question is essentially one of fact.
Decision 12149
Full Text of Decision 12149
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Since this is not a new trial, no question of hearing claimant again to allow him to adjust his story.
Decision 11988
Full Text of Decision 11988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Written submissions by employer considered to be argument only based on the information before the Board. An appeal to the Umpire is not a trial de novo nor does it permit the introduction of additional evidence.
Decision 11557
Full Text of Decision 11557
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
It should be clearly understood that this is not a new trial, but rather a determination concerning the conduct of the hearing before the Board. An Umpire does not stand in the shoes of the Board. Credibility and facts are an exclusive right of Board.
Decision 11265
Full Text of Decision 11265
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
A hearing before the Umpire is not a trial de novo and the decision of the Board on a question of fact can only be reversed if it was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
Decision 10995
Full Text of Decision 10995
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
S.80 does not provide for a trial de novo where the Umpire would re-hear all the evidence and make his own decision. The appeal cannot succeed unless the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse and capricious manneror without regard for the material.
Decision 10889
Full Text of Decision 10889
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Claimant wanted to testify under oath before the Umpire. S.80 does not provide for a new trial but for an appeal. Credibility was for the Board and is not for the Umpire. Of course, if new evidence were discovered since the hearing of the Board, I wouldhear it or send it to the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
church minister |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
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 |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Although the word "appeal" is used in s.80, the substance of the Umpire's jurisdiction is identical with that of this Court. The proceeding before the Umpire is not an appeal in the usual sense of that word but a circumscribed review. [p._4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| 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 |
|
