Decision 42158
Full Text of Decision 42158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 13 false or misleading statements. The claimant admitted having devoted all his time to his business and not making job searches, whereas on his cards, he said that he was not working and was available. Umpire found that the BOR had clearly erred in law in deciding that he had not knowingly made false or misleading statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
| self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 36927
Full Text of Decision 36927
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in principle by ignoring direct, oral evidence which was subject to cross-examination, in favour of indirect hearsay that was not subject to testing by cross-examination. BOR gave its decision without regard for the material before it. Matter is referred back before a newly constituted Board of Referees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 36862
Full Text of Decision 36862
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
BOR based its conclusion solely on the medical certificates and ignored all other reasons given by claimant seeking early retirement. BOR's decision was made without regard to the totality of the material before it, and hence, must be reversed on the facts. In failling to distinguish between "personal reasons" and "just cause" for voluntary leaving his job is erroneous in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0510.96
Full Text of Decision A-0510.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire and Board of Referees erred in deciding that the claimant should have produced a doctor’s certificate to support her claim that she had no alternative but to leave her employment. It is obvious that she was not claiming to have an illness when she said that working in a standing position hurt her feet. She simply found employment in a restaurant too difficult from a physical point of view. Since no one doubted her credibility, a certificate would have added nothing to her testimony.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hard work |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0355.96
Full Text of Decision A-0355.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
documentary evidence |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 25973A
Full Text of Decision 25973A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0281.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision A-0281.95
Full Text of Decision A-0281.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision 31080
Full Text of Decision 31080
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Misconduct. Hearsay evidence acceptable in U.I. cases. No obligation on the part of an employer to be present at a hearing. The Boards of Referees are masters of the facts, but in this case, the Board was too demanding when it indicated the kind of evidence that it wanted: error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 28232
Full Text of Decision 28232
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Nature of payment made related to wrongful dismissal. Such a factual issue must be resolved, not by giving a party the benefit of the doubt, but by determining whether the party bearing the burden of proof (the claimant) has proved his case. The Board erred in law by not applying the correct test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 24384
Full Text of Decision 24384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
To the extent that the Board seems to have given the Commission the burden of proving the unemployment, it has clearly erred in law. It also erred as to the type of proof required while ruling that such proof must be convincing enough, i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 22637
Full Text of Decision 22637
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of 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: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 21689
Full Text of Decision 21689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
There was also a serious error of law. The Board accepted that as a matter of law earlier statements of a claimant are to be given credibility over later statements. This is not representative of the law. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but that is not an invariable rule.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 21559
Full Text of Decision 21559
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board dismissed the appeal since neither claimant nor the employer being present, it was unable to establish his or their credibility. The Board should have proceeded according to its perception of the weight to be attached to the conflicting documentation. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 21503
Full Text of Decision 21503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
In view of the greater credibility generally granted the statements of a beneficiary previous to an unfavourable decision, as compared to those subsequently made within the context of an appeal, I believe I am justified in intervening here to rescind the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from a Commission agent |
|
Decision 21455
Full Text of Decision 21455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
In saying CEIC did not prove the services rendered were rendered full-time and that the insured was not rendering them for free, the Board clearly contravened para. 40(1) which puts this burden on the beneficiary. That was an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
Decision 21287
Full Text of Decision 21287
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Merely disbelieving claimant is not sufficient for a conclusion that he knowingly made a false statement, as per McDONALD. Clearly, the Board committed a serious error of law by dismissing claimant's appeal on the misrepresentation issue, based on its adverse credibility finding.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 20599
Full Text of Decision 20599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 19647
Full Text of Decision 19647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
I am of the opinion that Arbitration Board erred in law by exempting, as it did, the beneficiary from the burden of proving her availability on pretext she held down a job where she was on call.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
employed |
Decision 19597
Full Text of Decision 19597
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board allowed the case because the Commission and the employer had been unable to prove the criminal charges against claimant because the trial had not yet taken place. This is clearly an error of law. PERUSSE referred to. Findings of court not determinative of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 19516
Full Text of Decision 19516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
I do not interpret the Board's decision as meaning that it was finding hearsay evidence to be inadmissible. It was simply finding such evidence to be unconvincing. The decision went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. No error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
Decision 16768
Full Text of Decision 16768
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Obviously, the Board erred in law in its assessment of the burden of proof. While subsection 40(1) places on the claimant the burden of proving his entitlement in every case, this proof must be established on the balance of probabilities and not "beyond all doubt".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Decision 15206A
Full Text of Decision 15206A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The majority decision is erroneous in applying a "without any doubt" test. This is an error of law. It is clear that the correct evidentiary burden is one of "probabilities": is it more probable than not that payments received came out of a pension which was not a private plan.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
Decision 14879
Full Text of Decision 14879
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Obviously, the Board based its decision on a burden of proof that is too demanding. The insured does not have to prove her availability beyond all reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to do so by weight of evidence. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision 14084
Full Text of Decision 14084
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Board did say that the case law places greater weight on a first statement. Not error of law. Principle itself is not a legal or evidenciary rule. It is a common sense rule that every reasonable person would adopt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 13377
Full Text of Decision 13377
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in treating the normal preference for earlier statements as a rule of law rather than as a rule of thumb. While normally they may be regarded as more reliable, in the context here they were made where the central issue wassomething else.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 13213
Full Text of Decision 13213
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Reported no work even though earned $320. Fact that board said that claimant did not rebut presumption created by all circumstances and statements constitutes error of law. There is no presumption of guilt.
Decision 12014
Full Text of Decision 12014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Error of law not to ask whether CEIC has proved that claimant made statement knowing it to be false.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision A-1498.84
Full Text of Decision A-1498.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board had no valid reason to ignore the sworn declaration of the claimant to the effect that he had been given wrong information by an employee of the Commission. The Board, contrary to what was decided by the Umpire, erred in law in ignoring that evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
under oath |
|
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
credibility |
|
Decision 11085
Full Text of Decision 11085
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
One must keep in mind that for a penalty to be imposed, claimant must have known the statement to be false. The onus is on Commission to prove that. The Board erred in law when it said claimant did not satisfy the Board she did not knowingly make false statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
availability for work |
|
|
Decision A-1873.83
Full Text of Decision A-1873.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of 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: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
