Decision 54827
Full Text of Decision 54827
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Two letters, one for undeclared earnings and the other for false statements, were sent to claimant on March, 1996. Claimant filed a notice of appeal on May, 2001. Appeal denied by Commission but upheld by the BOR who reviewed evidence from the claimant and substituted its discretion for that of the Commission. Error in law found by Umpire: the only issue for determination by the BOR is whether the Commission exercised its discretion judicially. The BOR erred in its failure to deal with that issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0773.00
Full Text of Decision A-0773.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Issue: Can a BOR or an Umpire suspend an extra hours penalty (following the issuance of a notice of violation) imposed by the Commission pending the determination of an appeal against the penalty itself? No. The FCA held that the principle of criminal justice that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is not applicable when the Commission has exercised its power to impose an administrative penalty on a person whom it believes is in breach of a statutory duty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision 49609
Full Text of Decision 49609
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0773.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision A-0314.98
Full Text of Decision A-0314.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Commission's decision dated 01-02-96 but claimant's appeal filed only 7 months later. Claimant invoked his difficulty with the English language for not appealing earlier. Request to extend the delay of appeal denied both by BOR and Umpire. The FCA held that the facts on file were reasonable to have the BOR and the Umpire infer that the claimant had a good command of the English language. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed.
Decision 46859
Full Text of Decision 46859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant notified on June 4, 1998 that he was not entitled to benefits but did not file an appeal until March 23, 1999, that is nine months after he received the letter. The BOR concluded that the claimant had acted as a reasonable person because he had relied upon the union steward's advice. BOR erred in law in relying on the Albrecht case. The legislation authorizes the Commission to extend the time beyond the 30 day period "for special reasons". The test is not one of "good cause". The BOR has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Commission's exercise of discretion unless there is evidence that the Commission acted arbitrarily or in a non judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 46455
Full Text of Decision 46455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant notified of a penalty by a letter dated 11-07-1997. Appeal lodged in March 1998. Claimant explained the delay saying that he moved from his old address and received the mail late at his new address. The claimant admitted before the Umpire that he had not kept the Commission informed of his current address which is a requirement of SS.50(9) of EIA. Power to grant an extension to the 30 day appeal period is a discretionary power that belongs to the Commission and no evidence that the Commission exercised its discretion in a non-judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
| claim procedure |
address of normal place of residence |
change |
|
Decision A-0194.98
Full Text of Decision A-0194.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Decision suspending benefits issued in 1989 but claimant did not appeal before April 1996, which was one year later after he inquired about the status of his o/p. Both the Commission and the BOR refused to extend the appeal delay. Umpire allowed the appeal ruling that the Commission had failed to advise the claimant of his right to appeal when it wrote to the claimant in May 1995 after his inquiry about the o/p. Umpire's decision quashed by the FCA: no evidence that the Commission or the BOR failed to exercise its discretion judicially and Umpire erred when he considered the notice of o/p issued in May 1995 to be a decision of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 44167
Full Text of Decision 44167
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The severity of the penalty is subject to the Commission's discretion, although the Commission must work within a certain framework and certain limits. The Commission decided on the severity of the penalty with full knowledge of exactly the same facts that BOR took into account in reducing the penalty. In such circumstances, what is involved is not a discretionary decision by the Commission that can be corrected or cancelled. BOR members may view the same circumstances differently from the Commission, but this is not sufficient grounds to entitle BOR to revise the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 42158
Full Text of Decision 42158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant informed on 18-07-95 that he was not eligible for the SEA program because he had been operating his business since 04-03-94 and one of the conditions for participation in this program is that the business must not already be in operation. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law in reversing this decision since only the Commission has the discretionary power to accept or refuse a claimant's participation in the SEA program.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 41004
Full Text of Decision 41004
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0314.98
Decision 40484
Full Text of Decision 40484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0194.98.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 38100
Full Text of Decision 38100
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
From the moment misconduct is established, it is the employer's responsibility to decide on the appropriate sanction. In the proceeding, the Board could not replace the employer's opinion as to the appropriate punishment with its own. The Board therefore erred in taking the liberty to recommend a graduated sanction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
Decision A-0432.96
Full Text of Decision A-0432.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant's son picked up notices of decision dated 28-9-94 and put them in a drawer. Claimant was told of the letters in 11-94 and, while outside the delay, promptly notified the Commission of his desire to appeal. The Commission refused to extend the time. Both the BOR and the Umpire refused to interfere. The FCA allowed the application on the basis that the BOR had erred in law when considering the test for an extension of time to appeal to be whether or not there was "good cause" for the delay rather than considering the possibility of allowing an extension "for special reasons" as stipulated in the legislation. In so finding, the FCA made it clear however that they didn't accept the claimant's submission that he could not be considered to have received the notice of the Commission's decision until he found it in his house.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay not substantial |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| claim procedure |
good cause |
negligence |
|
Decision A-0709.95
Full Text of Decision A-0709.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
In exercising its discretionary power, the Commission judicially refused to extent the appeal period. However, the Board of Referees allowed the claimant to appeal in spite of the fact that she did this after the deadline. FCA found that the BOR could not, in this case, substitute its discretion for that of the Commission, unless it seemed that the Commission had not exercised its discretion judicially by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant ones.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 31825
Full Text of Decision 31825
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
There is a clear intention (s.86 of the Act) that it is only the BOR that gave the original decision that may entertain new facts and then, if appropriate, rescind or amend its earlier decision. (reference made to Brière v. CEIC)
Decision 25202
Full Text of Decision 25202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Reasons given by the CEIC in support of its refusal to extend the time period were insufficient to determine whether the discretionary decision was made judicially on the basis of relevant considerations. The Board therefore erred in law in saying that the decision was in accordance with the UI Act.
Decision 21716
Full Text of Decision 21716
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board clearly erred in law by substituting its discretion for that of the Commission in finding that claimant's confusion regarding the appeal procedure constituted sufficient special reason for reversing the decision of the insurance officer in rejecting the late appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 17390A
Full Text of Decision 17390A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law when it held that the CEIC decision not to refer N.S. residents was wrong. It lacked the jurisdiction to make that determination, there being no proof of abuse of administrative discretion or bad faith by those officers authorizedto make that decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discrimination |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
appeal |
|
Decision 16789
Full Text of Decision 16789
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Earnings reported but not deducted. The Commission's conduct was careless and I recommend it write off at least a portion of the overpayment of $3,300. Nevertheless, I must reiterate my view in CUB 13015 that I have no jurisdiction to write off. The Board erred in law.
Decision 16133
Full Text of Decision 16133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by considering the claimant to have been referred to a course by CEIC. It cannot substitute itself to CEIC to exercise the Commission's sole discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
appeal |
|
Decision 12670
Full Text of Decision 12670
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law and in fact. It has no authority to designate a course as an approved one under ss.26(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
appeal |
|
Decision A-0168.80
Full Text of Decision A-0168.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Insured stated that he had not received the forms sent to him by the CEIC. Umpire allowed the case because in his opinion the CEIC should have used 55(10). Error of law. Only the CEIC may exercise that power. The Umpire therefore exceeded his jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
discretionary power waiver or variation of requirements |
|
|
