Summary of Issue: Role

Decision A-0397.03 Full Text of Decision A-0397.03

The claimant was refused an antedate for failing to show that he had good cause for the delay in submitting his claim. The Federal Court of Appeal found that it is not the function of the Umpire, or of their Court, to decide if the BOR has made an error of fact, unless the applicant establishes that the Board made its decision without regard to the material before it.

Decision 57913 Full Text of Decision 57913

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0397.03

Decision A-0488.00 Full Text of Decision A-0488.00

Case similar to Victoria Sveinson's. See summary indexed under FCA A-0551.00

Decision A-0551.00 Full Text of Decision A-0551.00

Held that the standard of review applicable to Umpires' decisions is correctness rather than the patent unreasonableness or the reasonableness simpliciter. This means that the lower tribunal's interpretation or application of the law must be the correct one. If the Court is of the view that the interpretation of the lower tribunal is incorrect, then it can quash that decision.

Decision A-0943.96 Full Text of Decision A-0943.96

Claimant refused to provide relevant information requested by the investigator. BOR did not consider the explanations made by the claimant’s counsel to be credible; it favoured the statements made voluntarily and spontaneously by all the individuals questioned during the investigation. FCA dismissed the claimant’s request for a judicial review on the grounds that the Court cannot substitute its appreciation of the evidence for that of the Board, which was upheld by the Umpire.

Decision 2122291 Full Text of Decision 2122291

Special nature of powers conferred by s. 28 of the Federal Court Act which are confined to the supervision and control of the legality of decisions made by administrative bodies, and to ask them to reconsider the matter with appropriate instructions.

Decision A-0377.87 Full Text of Decision A-0377.87

This Court is not called upon to determine the rights of claimant under the UI Act in all their aspects. Some legal positions with respect to those rights and some conclusions of fact are now agreed upon, and the validity of those can no longer be disputed.

Decision 13688 Full Text of Decision 13688

Refer to: A-0377.87

Decision A-0222.76 Full Text of Decision A-0222.76

It is possible that the Umpire's decision could be attacked for other reasons; the Court should not express an opinion on this point since the applicant did not state grounds in support of his application other than the one I have already disposed of.