Decision A0368.06
Full Text of Decision A0368.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction pursuant to section 90(1) of the Act in supplementing the hours of insurable employment found by the Commission by the number of hours represented by income replacement benefits when it was only open to the Minister of National Revenue to do so. The majority's reasons from this Court in A-717-98 (Haberman) are dispositive in this case: that the Minister of National Revenue has exclusive jurisdiction to make a determination on how many hours of insurable employment a claimant possesses for the purposes of the Act. The Haberman decision has been followed by other decisions in this Court: A-354-01 (Didiadato), A-778-00 (Thiara), A-110-99 (Tuomi) and A-466-98 (Hawryluk).
Decision A-0341.03
Full Text of Decision A-0341.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Court found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had erred in finding that they were bound by the insurability ruling, as it is a matter within the Minister or Tax Court jurisdiction. Refer to FCA A-0340.03 for decision.
Decision A-0340.03
Full Text of Decision A-0340.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Court found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had erred in finding that they were bound by the insurability ruling, as it is a matter within the Minister or Tax Court jurisdiction.
Decision 57578
Full Text of Decision 57578
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0340.03
Decision 57577
Full Text of Decision 57577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0341.03
Decision A-0354.01
Full Text of Decision A-0354.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
A question concerning a claimant's number of hours of insurable employment must be determined by an authorized officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Neither the Board of Referees, nor an Umpire, has jurisdiction to determine this question. Decision of the FCA in Haberman (A-0717.98) cited.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 52722
Full Text of Decision 52722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The FCA has stated in a number of decisions [Johanne Lépine Desmarchais (A-0907.88), Balbir Kaur (A-0487.93)] that the Minister of National Revenue has the sole jurisdiction to decide the question of insurability of employment. If the claimant wishes to contest the Revenue Canada decision, this must be done before the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0470.00
Full Text of Decision A-0470.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Based on the FCA decision in Haberman (A-0717.98), the Umpire had no jurisdiction to decide the matter at issue, that is, the calculation of the number of hours worked by the claimant which must be decided by an officer of the Department of National Revenue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 51458
Full Text of Decision 51458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant had only 858 hours of insurable employment while requiring 910. Claimant is a supply teacher and Commission based its calculation of the claimant's insurable hours by allowing 5.5 hours of insurable work per day rather than 7 hours in accordance with the School Board's policy. Held by Umpire that neither him nor the Board could contradict a ruling of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Decision 51354
Full Text of Decision 51354
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0354.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0110.99
Full Text of Decision A-0110.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA held that matters concerning hours of insurable employment were matters of insurability for the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency to decide and not for the BOR and Umpire who were limited to issues of entitlement. References made to FCA decisions in Hawryluk (A-0466.98) and Haberman (A-0717.98).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0717.98
Full Text of Decision A-0717.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The number of insurable hours is a question that shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue. Neither the BOR and correlatively the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant had a sufficient number of insurable hours in insurable employment to qualify for employment insurance benefits. Reference made to other FCA's decisions in Valentine (A-0241.98), Vautour (A-0733.98) and Kaur (A-0487.93).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision A-0466.98
Full Text of Decision A-0466.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Making reference to FCA decision in Hoek (A-0089.99), the Court held that an insurability issue had to be determined by the Department of National Revenue (now the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency). Neither the BOR or the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine the number of hours in insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 47067A
Full Text of Decision 47067A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0470.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0241.98
Full Text of Decision A-0241.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Insurability issues take one route, i.e., Revenue Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, and entitlement to benefits take another, i.e., the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire. The authority of the Commission to seek an insurability ruling and the insurability ruling itself are issues that should have been appealed before the Tax Court but that were not.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0105.98
Full Text of Decision A-0105.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA confirmed that the determination of employment insurability was unrelated to that of benefit entitlement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 41543
Full Text of Decision 41543
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimants did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period to establish a claim. Umpire stated that the determination of whether a claimant has had the required number of hours insurable employment during the qualifying period clearly involves a determination as to how many hours the insured person has had in an insurable employment. He concluded that the issue involved in these appeals is not one that falls within the jurisdicition of the BOR and ruled that the matters will be referred back to the Commission which is directed to request rulings from the Department of National Revenue.**Commission requested a judicial review before the FCA because the Umpire erred in law in ruling as he did, the issue was one of insufficient hours of insurable employment and not one of insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Decision A-0932.96
Full Text of Decision A-0932.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Counsel for the claimant argued that the Commission, in considering entitlement to benefit, must take into account the decision rendered by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the insurability of a claimant. FCA maintains that this argument has been definitively invalidated by the recent decision in D’Astoli, A-0999-96.
Decision A-1000.96
Full Text of Decision A-1000.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Decision A-1001.96
Full Text of Decision A-1001.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Decision A-0999.96
Full Text of Decision A-0999.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 38215
Full Text of Decision 38215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The BOR overstepped its authority and made a basic error in law by claiming to be competent to calculate the weeks of employment, a function over which the Department of National Revenue alone has discretionary power. Under subsection 61(3) of the Act, that department is the only authority competent to render decisions in that regard.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0733.95
Full Text of Decision A-0733.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA declared that the question as to whether and for how long the claimant was in insurable employment is one which neither the BOR nor the Umpire has power to decide.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Decision 35988
Full Text of Decision 35988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 35987
Full Text of Decision 35987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 35986
Full Text of Decision 35986
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 25416
Full Text of Decision 25416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Quotes ss. 61(3), amended in 11-90. It seems clear to me that the question at bar concerns the duration of an insurable week. In Part III of the Act, the word "minister" means the Minister of National Revenue. He is the only person designated to render this decision (duration of insurable employment).
Decision A-0487.93
Full Text of Decision A-0487.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Employment ruled not insurable (due to nonpayment of wages) by Minister of National Revenue. Ruling overturned by the Board and the Umpire. In our view, the making of the ruling was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister. This was made clear by this Court in LÉPINE-DESMARCHAIS.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 20023A
Full Text of Decision 20023A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0487.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision 22871
Full Text of Decision 22871
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The determination of whether employment is insurable employment is one for Revenue Canada and any appeal from the decisions of that Department must be made to the Tax Court of Canada. The Commission is bound by their finding. All it can do is await the decision of the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
appeals |
|
Decision A-0818.90
Full Text of Decision A-0818.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
For the purposes of these proceedings, the determination of the Minister of National Revenue that the employment was insurable must be taken as final. Case returned to Umpire to decide what was the amount of insurable earnings and the period over which it should be allocated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Decision 18570
Full Text of Decision 18570
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0818.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
commissions |
|
Decision 18908
Full Text of Decision 18908
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Has only 19 of the 20 weeks required. Percentage paid each week as 3 public holidays. In the view of the Board, this represented a 20th week. An error in law; insurability is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. In any event, this could not be decided on the basis of Reg. 58(12).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
statutory holidays |
|
Decision 15672
Full Text of Decision 15672
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0907.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0907.88
Full Text of Decision A-0907.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
15 of the required 16 weeks plus vacation pay of $384. According to the Umpire, he does not have the authority to decide whether or not vacation pay constitutes a 16th insured week. This authority rests solely with the Minister of National Revenue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15459
Full Text of Decision 15459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board obviously erred in law. In accordance with 75(3) and 105, determination of insurability is made by the Minister of Revenue. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review such a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 14872
Full Text of Decision 14872
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Room and board provided by other than employer with no remuneration in cash. Insurability of employment to be decided by Tax Court. As a decision on insurability of earnings is tied to insurability of employment per s.2(k), decision deferred until then.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
Decision 14369
Full Text of Decision 14369
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Whether participation in the Ontario Futures Program at $100 a week, and then work experience placement, is insurable. A note from a Commission officer is no evidence of National Revenue's ruling since neither claimant nor Commission had requested a ruling.
Decision 13999
Full Text of Decision 13999
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Commission's finding [that claimant does not have sufficient weeks to qualify] was based upon National Revenue's ruling that his work engagement was not insurable. This is binding upon the Commission. Claimant's only recourse was to appeal to Minister of National Revenue.
Decision 13367
Full Text of Decision 13367
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The only issue here appeared to be that of insurable employment, one which is exclusively a matter for the Minister of National Revenue. The Board had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter nor did I.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 11978
Full Text of Decision 11978
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Whether employment as mayor of the city was insurable or not is not an issue for decision by Umpire. Any appeal would have had to be made to the Minister of National Revenue and eventually to Tax Court.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
employed |
Decision 11610
Full Text of Decision 11610
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
If it is necessary to determine whether the arbitration award is insurable earnings that decision cannot be made by the Board but rather by the Minister of National Revenue under s.75.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Decision A-0039.85
Full Text of Decision A-0039.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The duty to decide questions of entitlement devolves upon the Commission under ss. 39(3). Since the case is concerned with the number of weeks [of insurable employment] and not whether claimant had been in insurable employment, the Tax Court was without jurisdiction. [Act amended since: ss. 61(3) and ss. 35(4)]
Decision A-1496.84
Full Text of Decision A-1496.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The question whether free board was insurable earnings to determine the benefit rate was properly appealed to a Board under s.79 and thence to the Umpire under s.80. [p. 10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision 11349
Full Text of Decision 11349
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
An Umpire has no jurisdiction to interfere with a National Revenue ruling declaring that claimant was not in insurable employment from 7-83 to 7-84. I cannot engage in illegalities for the purpose of accommodating the claimant.
Decision A-1174.82
Full Text of Decision A-1174.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Evidence highly conflicting as to whether claimant worked. The Board found that he did. Commission's submission that the Board had no jurisdiction to decide that employment was insurable found irrelevant by Umpire, the issue simply being whether he worked. The Umpire did not err.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
