Summary of Issue: Case Not Appealed

Decision A-0686.99 Full Text of Decision A-0686.99

Held by the FCA that the Umpire's conclusion was not one which was open to him since the Court had already ruled (see FCA A-0667.96) that the BOR had failed to properly consider the subjective aspect of the claimant's statements. His only option was to give effect to it by allowing the appeal and referring the matter back to a BOR or determine the issue for himself on the basis that the BOR had committed the error identified by the Court and dispose of the appeal accordingly.

Decision 34290B Full Text of Decision 34290B

See summary indexed under FCA A-0686.99

Decision A-0194.97 Full Text of Decision A-0194.97

Claimant objected to a decision in her favour, criticizing the Umpire for stating, in the reasons he gave in support of his decision, that following her employment on the family farm, the claimant should be considered a “self-employed person” in the agriculture sector. FCA found that this assertion by the Umpire was not necessary to his finding. It was simply an obiter dictum, in other words an expression of opinion that had no effect on the decision the Umpire had to render and was not binding on either the Umpire or the other jurisdictions that may be called upon to deal with this issue. FCA dismissed the application solely because it was not directed against the Umpire’s decision.

Decision A-0873.96 Full Text of Decision A-0873.96

The claimant maintained that the Umpire went beyond his jurisdiction in ruling on the question of entitlement to EI benefit and the penalties imposed, though the only question submitted to him concerned the BOR’s power to order that the Commission’s decision be referred back to it for re-examination. FCA noted that this argument of the claimant ignored the fact that the Umpire had also dealt with a second appeal involving the same parties, and had ruled on the two substantive issues. FCA therefore found that even though it would have been preferable, from a technical point of view, for the Umpire to write his decision on the merits in the context of the second appeal rather than the first, the claimant had suffered no prejudice because the two appeals were before the Umpire, and the Umpire also had to rule of the merits of the BOR’s decision regarding entitlement and penalties.

Decision A-0707.96 Full Text of Decision A-0707.96

The claimant maintained that the Umpire went beyond his jurisdiction in ruling on the question of entitlement to EI benefit and the penalties imposed, though the only question submitted to him concerned the BOR’s power to order that the Commission’s decision be referred back to it for re-examination. FCA noted that this argument of the claimant ignored the fact that the Umpire had also dealt with a second appeal involving the same parties, and had ruled on the two substantive issues. FCA therefore found that even though it would have been preferable, from a technical point of view, for the Umpire to write his decision on the merits in the context of the second appeal rather than the first, the claimant had suffered no prejudice because the two appeals were before the Umpire, and the Umpire also had to rule of the merits of the BOR’s decision regarding entitlement and penalties.

Decision A-1035.96 Full Text of Decision A-1035.96

An Umpire who disposes of an appeal from a decision of a BOR has no jurisdiction to modify the effect of a previous decision of the BOR which is not the subject of the appeal.

Decision A-0206.96 Full Text of Decision A-0206.96

Only the second decision of the Board of Referees was appealed to the Umpire, a decision which he confirmed. The first decision, which the second one rescinded, was not appealed; therefore, the Umpire was unable to amend it and even less to make a declaratory judgment regarding its effects. For these reasons, the FCA found that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to decide on the applicability of ss. 87(1) to the BOR’s first decision.

Decision 27858A Full Text of Decision 27858A

Claimant's legal representative advised the BOR that the appeal on one of the two issues was abandonned. Claimant now wishes to revoke his abandonment of the appeal. Umpire has no jurisdiction to do that and to hear the appeal. Only recourse is to have the matter come before a different BOR.

Decision A-0586.93 Full Text of Decision A-0586.93

The Umpire erred on one issue. It is clear that only the first group had requested that the said decision be reviewed; the other two groups clearly made no such request. Accordingly the Umpire could not allow an application for review which had never been requested.

Decision 18287A Full Text of Decision 18287A

Refer to: A-0586.93