Decision 76247
Full Text of Decision 76247
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant appeals from the determination given by a BOR, which allowed the employer's appeal from the Commission's decision that the acts of which the employer accused the claimant did not show misconduct on his part. The Commission had accepted the claim for benefits by the claimant. The employer suspended the claimant for 10 working days following a harassment complaint and an administrative investigation. The Commission asked the employer to provide information from the claimant’s file, as it could not make a finding of misconduct based merely on the allegation in the letter of suspension. The employer refused, saying that the case involved harassment. The employer also said that it would not disclose anything about its investigation into the facts and complaints. The claimant flatly denied the employer’s allegations, saying that he never harassed or bullied any other employees or directed foul language at them. The Commission gave the claimant the benefit of doubt, as the evidence was equally balanced on both sides (section 49 of the Employment Insurance Act). The appeal by the claimant is allowed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
credibility |
|
|
| proof |
Benefit of Doubt |
|
|
Decision A0371.06
Full Text of Decision A0371.06
summary
| 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.
Decision A0473.06
Full Text of Decision A0473.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a prison guard, was dismissed for allegedly admitting to selling contraband tobacco to inmates and was later arrested and charged with breach of trust. The Umpire agreed with the Commission that a finding of misconduct could be made while a criminal trial was pending. The Umpire also said that the Commission had the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the action did constitute misconduct. The Umpire concluded that the only evidence before the Board were vague claimant admissions of selling tobacco. The Court said the admissions were hearsay and no copy of the claimant's alleged admissions to the employer were provided despite the Commission's request. The Court was unable to find that the Umpire erred in concluding that the Commission had not satisfied its onus of proof.
Decision A-0081.02
Full Text of Decision A-0081.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission found that the claimant had lost his employment due to his own misconduct. The Court determined that the onus of proof had not been reversed and was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the Commission was correct in its finding of misconduct.
Decision 51218A
Full Text of Decision 51218A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0081.02
Decision A-0145.00
Full Text of Decision A-0145.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
OBITER: There was nothing in the settlement from which it could be inferred that the employer had withdrawn the original allegation of misconduct. However, the payment of $25,000 might have supported such an inference (reference made to Boulton, FCA A-0045.96), although whether it would have established decisively that the applicant had not been dismissed for cause is another matter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 39704B
Full Text of Decision 39704B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0145.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 43119A
Full Text of Decision 43119A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant charged with sexual assault in connection with incidents occurred 10 years ago. Found guilty by the Ontario Court - General Division and dismissed the next day. Claimant never pleaded guilty and has maintained throughout that he is innocent. Claimant disqualified for misconduct and decision maintained by BOR. Held by Umpire that where there is a conviction following a trial but the claimant maintains his innocence, a finding must be made as to whether the claimant conducted himself as alleged. To discharge the burden of proof, more evidence may have to be adduced. Error in law to simply conclude that a conviction constitutes misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 44345
Full Text of Decision 44345
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed after it was brought to the employer's attention that she had been charged with possession of marijuana thereby causing her bond to be revoked. Commission argued that the charge could only be laid on an information of reasonable and probable grounds that the crime alleged had been committed. BOR reasoned that laying a charge does not establish misconduct because the mental element of wilfulness is absent. Guilt cannot be presumed or inferred simply because a charge has been proffered. Referring to FCA in Meunier (A-0130.96), the Umpire recognized that employer had no choice but to dismiss the claimant after claimant's bond was revoked but that she was not dismissed due to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision A-0562.97
Full Text of Decision A-0562.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher fired for having developed a special relationship with one student. Disqualification removed by BOR but reinstated by the Umpire. FCA held that although there may have been sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant from his employment as professor, the "misconduct" of S.28 is not to be assumed in all cases of legitimate dismissal. A finding of misconduct can only be made on the basis of clear evidence and not merely of speculation and suppositions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision A-0045.96
Full Text of Decision A-0045.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA was of the view that there was nothing in the settlement agreement which would permit one to infer that the employer withdrew his allegation of misconduct against the claimant. This is not to suggest that settlement agreement cannot be admitted as evidence to rebut the Commission's understanding that employment was lost due to a claimant's own misconduct. Where a settlement agreement provides for reinstatement or the employee is given meaningful compensation then due weight should be given to such evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision A-0130.96
Full Text of Decision A-0130.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant suspended following a charge of sexual assault. Only evidence in the record: employer's vague and speculative version of the facts. BOR asked the Commission to investigate further but the Commission refused. Disqualification upheld by the BOR and by the Umpire, who was satisfied with the body of evidence. FCA disagreed: to show misconduct and the link between misconduct and employment, 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. References to Joseph (A-636-85), Langlois (A-94-95), Choinière (A-471-95) and Fakhari (A-732-95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision A-0732.95
Full Text of Decision A-0732.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
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 |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision A-0237.95
Full Text of Decision A-0237.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission, BOR and Umpires exercise administrative functions. They are not courts of law. The gathering of information is informal. Moreover, Boards and Umpires are not governed by the formalities of rules of evidence adopted by and imposed upon courts of law. Upheld by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
Decision 31899
Full Text of Decision 31899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
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 |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision A-0067.95
Full Text of Decision A-0067.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
According to BOR, claimant's pay illegally cut in contravention of the corporate by-law and the Corporations Act of Ont. Misconduct not proven. Employer appealed. Umpire found BOR's decision capricious as by-laws of the corporation not adduced in evidence. No reviewable error of law found by the FC.
Decision 27076
Full Text of Decision 27076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0067.95
Decision 25991
Full Text of Decision 25991
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
A finding of misconduct now carries a very severe sanction for the claimant, namely the loss of any benefits for the whole benefit period following his claim. The Commission has the burden of proof of misconduct and Boards must see that the Commission meets that burden.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
Decision 25595
Full Text of Decision 25595
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The burden of proof of misconduct is on the Commission. The Board is obliged by ss. 79(2) to state in writing its findings of fact and in the context of a misconduct decision it must make findings which bring the case within the legal interpretation of misconduct.
Decision 24269
Full Text of Decision 24269
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The complaint against claimant is that he took away a customer of the employer for his own gain. The onus of proof is upon the party making the allegation. The Board's finding is made without conclusive proof. It is no more than an assumption couched in a general statement. Fact findings erroneous.
Decision 22637
Full Text of Decision 22637
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The correct standard is the civil standard of proof on a preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. In my view the Board erred in law in finding that misconduct had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 21645
Full Text of Decision 21645
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Proof that the job was lost by misconduct must be made by the party alleging it. The burden of proof on all issues is on the balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. When prima facie evidence exists, the onus then shifts to claimant for an innocent explanation.
Railway worker suspended due to violation of operating rules. The Board found that he had been suspended and presumed that he lost his job by reason of his own misconduct. The Board cannot presume that he lost his job by reason of misconduct simply because he was suspended.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 21310
Full Text of Decision 21310
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The only evidence as to misconduct was a summary of a telephone conversation with a representative of the employer. While hearsay evidence is admissible before Boards, a Board should recognize the weakness of this evidence when challenged by direct evidence of claimant.
Decision 20623
Full Text of Decision 20623
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Proof must be made by the party alleging misconduct, on the balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. When prima facie evidence exists, the onus shifts to claimant for an innocent explanation. Reasonable doubt to be resolved in favour of claimant.
Decision 19859
Full Text of Decision 19859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is well established that the onus of proving misconduct is on the CEIC and such proof must be at least convincing on a balance of probabilities. The evidence must be "clear, strong and unequivocal". Proof of intentional or reckless behaviour leading to dismissal is required.
Very little weight to be given to CEIC interviews with employers when there is no record of the interview apart from the officer's notes which have neither been read nor signed by the interviewee. Always susceptible to interpretation. Diametrically opposed evidence from claimant.
Decision 19172
Full Text of Decision 19172
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is incorrect to argue that misconduct must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is not a matter for criminal law; the preponderance of evidence applies. The fact that a grievance was filed is just an argument, not evidence.
Decision 19112
Full Text of Decision 19112
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Board must identify the conduct of the claimant which it finds to be misconduct. The employer's allegation that the claimant was uncooperative and had threatened the employer, in the absence of details, does not support a finding of misconduct.
Decision 19086
Full Text of Decision 19086
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Previous decisions have established that the Commission must prove that the claimant did in fact lose his job because of his own misconduct. However, the Commission is not required to prove such misconduct beyond all reasonable doubt: the preponderance of evidence is enough.
Decision 18895
Full Text of Decision 18895
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Misconduct inconclusive since the employer's policy regarding an obligation to work on Saturdays was not specified, and he did not appear before the Board. The onus of proof is on CEIC or the employer. Therefore, benefit of the doubt given to the insured person.
Decision 17898
Full Text of Decision 17898
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Nowhere does the Board identify exactly what duties she refused to do. The Board's decision looks as though it decided that claimant's behaviour at work was unacceptable merely because the employer said it was. This is not sufficient reason for the decision reached.
It must be kept in mind that the burden of proving the misconduct which is alleged is on the Commission. If the Board after weighing all the evidence is in doubt as to whether or not claimant lost her job due to misconduct, the benefit of that doubt must be given to her.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 17649
Full Text of Decision 17649
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Only evidence submitted by employer is in writing and hearsay. When there is reason to doubt credibility, the Board should not rely on them if contradicted by oral evidence. Clear statements must be privileged. Reasonable doubt in favor of claimant.
Employer states he cannot divulge name of informants, that he himself was not witness of misconduct. Solidity of proof thus decreased. Clear, solid and unequivocal evidence is necessary.
Facts contradicted by oral evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
Decision 16547
Full Text of Decision 16547
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, through complete secondary hearsay evidence, is charged with being a drunk, a criminal, a liar and involved in obtaining false medical certificates. Such evidence should be examined very carefully when there is absolute denial from one who gives verifiable evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
missing information |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 16186
Full Text of Decision 16186
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is true that it is up to CEIC to prove misconduct. It is not necessary for the evidence to be beyond all reasonable doubt; weight of evidence is sufficient. This is a question of fact to be determined according to the particular circumstances.
Decision 14800
Full Text of Decision 14800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0369.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision A-0369.88
Full Text of Decision A-0369.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire's view that the burden of proving misconduct is on the Commission and the employer is correct. The new evidence (an agreement reached by the Labour Board) created a doubt concerning the alleged misconduct and, accordingly, misconduct had not been proven.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 15189
Full Text of Decision 15189
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The test requires that the Commission prove the misconduct and that this must be proved with reasonable certainty. Where there is any reasonable doubt, this must be resolved in claimant's favour.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 14988
Full Text of Decision 14988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Board wrong in asking question: Has claimant proven he lost his job without just cause? Where the Commission alleges that claimant has lost his job due to misconduct, the onus is on Commission to prove it, not on claimant to justify the matter.
Decision 14622
Full Text of Decision 14622
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
If the employer's version is accepted, the misconduct is proven. If the employee's version is accepted, misconduct not proven. Board in doubt as to which version was the correct one. I find myself in same position. Appropriate that such doubt be resolved in claimant's favour.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
improper language |
|
|
Decision 14630
Full Text of Decision 14630
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Board prepared to give claimant some benefit of doubt by reducing disqualification. Error in law. It did not determine what, if any, conduct amounted to misconduct and whether job lost by reason thereof. It is only after making such determination that length may be examined.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 14569
Full Text of Decision 14569
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Board examined whether the employer acted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds in dismissing claimant. An employer may do so but these grounds do not necessarily constitute misconduct. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
Decision 13932
Full Text of Decision 13932
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Had the Board addressed the issue of whether the Commission had discharged the onus upon it to prove by clear unequivocal evidence misconduct on the part of claimant which gave rise to dismissal, it would have allowed the appeal.
In cases such as these [statements highly contradictory] there is a heavy burden or onus upon the party alleging misconduct... to prove it. Third-hand equivocal evidence is not enough.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 13549
Full Text of Decision 13549
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Misconduct must be real cause of dismissal and not merely excuse. Evidence must be detailed and not be based solely on opinion of employer.
Nothing in the Act to indicate that burden of proof demanded in criminal cases [beyond a reasonable doubt] must be imposed within context of this social legislation. Balance of probabilities is sufficient. This burden rests on the Commission. Cited DAVLUT.
Decision 13386
Full Text of Decision 13386
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Where Commission decides to disqualify for misconduct, burden of proof is on it. [Absent such proof], disqualification should be cancelled, not reduced.
Decision 13159
Full Text of Decision 13159
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
CUBs 6210 and 10680 were referred saying that if the employer has acted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds the onus of proof is met. I do not think the bona fides of the employer's behaviour is the test. It is to the employee's conduct that attention must be directed.
Decision 12747
Full Text of Decision 12747
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Extensive jurisprudence indicating that when misconduct is alleged it must be proven by the persons alleging it. Not convinced that Board applied this. Faced with conflicting stories, it made no determination that an offence occurred. Decision set aside.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
personality conflict |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 12441
Full Text of Decision 12441
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
At issue: insubordination. The onus is on the Commission if they decide to impose a disqualification to prove the case. While it is the general civil onus, it is a fairly serious allegation, so the proof should be of good quality.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Decision 12417
Full Text of Decision 12417
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is well established that before a disqualification can be imposed, the Commission must prove that the claimant lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 12105
Full Text of Decision 12105
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is a well established principle that the misconduct must be proven by the persons alleging it and, where a reasonable doubt exists, the issue should be resolved in favour of the claimant. The onus rests on the Commission to establish positively the alleged misconduct. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
personality conflict |
|
|
Decision 11917
Full Text of Decision 11917
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Misconduct must be proven by the person alleging it. It is the responsibility of the Commision to establish positively the existence of misconduct. If there is a reasonable doubt, the issue must be resolved in favour of claimant. Not to be treated lightly. Heavy onus.
Decision 11826
Full Text of Decision 11826
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It is incumbent on the person alleging such misconduct to prove it. It is the responsibility of the Commission to establish positively the existence of misconduct. If there is a reasonable doubt, the issue must be resolved in favour of the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
confidential information |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Decision A-0636.85
Full Text of Decision A-0636.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
To prove misconduct by an employee, it must be shown that he behaved in some way other than he should have. It is not proven simply by showing that employer found one's conduct reprehensible. Detailed evidence must show how he behaved and whether such behaviour was reprehensible.
Decision 10783
Full Text of Decision 10783
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0636.85
Decision 11762
Full Text of Decision 11762
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Settled that burden of proof of misconduct rests on CEIC and it appears to me that board failed to apply this principle by requiring claimant to establish beyond doubt that employer had made false statement.
Decision 11674
Full Text of Decision 11674
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Burden of proof on CEIC rather than employer since misconduct must be examined within meaning of Act and not meaning as understood by employer. CEIC must not simply make a few general assertions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
conflict of interest |
|
|
Decision 11660
Full Text of Decision 11660
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Board misdirected itself when it said claimant was not able to prove that the allegations were not true. In the light of the third hand evidence before the Board, it should have considered whether the Commission discharged the heavy burden of proof upon it.
As this is a matter of alleged misconduct giving rise to a dismissal from employment there is a heavy burden upon the Commission to prove that misconduct. It cannot simply be presumed.
The evidence is a report by employee of company of contents of film which he may or may not have seen to employee of CEIC and then a report by CEIC to the Board of what employer's employee told CEIC employee. This is of questionable value, and claimant denies allegations.
Decision 11648
Full Text of Decision 11648
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Board did not identify any conduct on the part of the claimant which could be construed as misconduct and thus was not in a position to find that claimant's loss of employment was by reason of misconduct.
Heavy onus on the party alleging misconduct to prove it. The onus has been likened to that on the Crown in criminal cases to prove beyond reasonable doubt. While I have some reservation that the burden is that strong, the evidence must be clear, strong and unequivocal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Decision 11346
Full Text of Decision 11346
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Evidence beyond reasonable doubt inconsistent with aims of social legislation. I am rather of the view that CEIC must establish misconduct on balance of probabilities.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
obstinance |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 10868
Full Text of Decision 10868
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
As per Commission staff, where employer alleges misconduct, it must be conclusively proven. That is not the law. Staff and Boards must be made aware of CUB 6210 that the duty of Commission is to determine whether employer has acted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 10777
Full Text of Decision 10777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
While burden of proof in UI cases is most often on insured, there are situations where the CEIC must clearly discharge it. I cite for example cases where there is allegation of misconduct.
Decision 10692
Full Text of Decision 10692
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Evidence of misconduct required is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt [context: fraud]. Balance of probabilities applies in this instance and this is not a situation where benefit of doubt is given to insured.
Decision 10674
Full Text of Decision 10674
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Plainly it is for the CEIC to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt; if it cannot discharge this burden, insured must plainly have the benefit. CEIC has not discharged burden in this case.
Completely inconsistent evidence. Without giving reason, board accepted version of employer who passed on opinions of 3 employees where were not called or identified. Too much weight was in fact given to something that did not merit any.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision A-1873.83
Full Text of Decision A-1873.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire wrote, "I do not see how any Board can be asked to make a finding of misconduct, except upon some direct evidence of it". We are all of opinion that this is an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision A-0241.82
Full Text of Decision A-0241.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It has been frequently held by Umpires, and I think correctly held, that the onus lies on the Commission to establish that the loss of employment was by reason of claimant's own misconduct. The Board must be satisfied that the misconduct was the reason not the excuse.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
dual reason for dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
