Summary of Issue: Issue Not Recognized

Decision 66253 Full Text of Decision 66253

The Record of Employment was obviously invalid, if not false, and this could not be ignored. Ignoring it constitutes an error of law. The 11 bi-weekly report cards to claim benefits for a benefit period established with this false Record of Employment are in the docket. Such evidence could not be ignored without a reason.

Decision 63064 Full Text of Decision 63064

The claimant's spouse had access to his Teledec code and admitted that she continued to make claims and receive benefits to their joint account after his return to work. The Umpire stated that the Commission carries the burden of proving that the claimant made false or misleading statements under the legislation and that they were made knowingly. It is not necessary to establish fraud. In its conclusions, the Board of Referees addressed the issue of fraud and stated that the claimant did not knowingly defraud the Commission. The judge finds that the Board's decision was laconic and could not be upheld.

Decision A-0344.03 Full Text of Decision A-0344.03

The claimant was fired for engaging in activities that violated the restrictions entitling him to workers' compensation benefits. The Court found that the Umpire correctly set aside the decision of the Board of Referees, which refused to address the issue before it and, more specifically, to consider the evidence. That is, did the claimant lose his employment due to misconduct?

Decision 57697 Full Text of Decision 57697

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0344.03

Decision A-0297.97 Full Text of Decision A-0297.97

The FCA found that the BOR had asked itself the wrong question, that is, whether the claimant voluntarily left his employment rather than whether there was misconduct established. Pointing at some of the inconsistent and inaccurate findings of the BOR, the FCA ordered that the case be sent back to a new BOR for rehearing.

Decision A-0312.96 Full Text of Decision A-0312.96

FCA accepted the finding of the Umpire that the Board of Referees erred in law in confusing the notion of insurability with that of being unemployed, but it did not believe that the Umpire could base his decision on the BOR’s statement, which was deemed unacceptable. The case was sent to another Umpire for a new decision.

Decision A-0436.95 Full Text of Decision A-0436.95

The BOR found that claimant had made a serious error of judgement when transferring school funds to his personal account but that he did not "further intend" to harm employer's interests. Held that the BOR must not question the employer's decision to terminate the claimant. Upheld by the FCA.

Decision 16648A Full Text of Decision 16648A

The Board erred in law in simply endorsing the decision on the basis that "the Commission has acted responsibly". This is of no direct relevance. It is the correctness of that decision which the Board is obliged to determine.

Decision 16305 Full Text of Decision 16305

According to the Board, the insured had a study/work experience and was prepared to quit his courses, but his job searches had not been sufficiently numerous. Error in law. Confused 2 different notions: availability and inability to obtain employment. Delay to be granted.

Decision 15737 Full Text of Decision 15737

The Board erred in law by decreeing that the insured had demonstrated availability where it had to decide whether he was unemployed in relation to the activities linked to the business he operated.

Decision 15073 Full Text of Decision 15073

The Board ruled that the insured person was available. An error in law. Before being eligible, an individual must be unemployed. There is a clear distinction between eligibility and availability as stated in CUB-14399.

Decision 14752 Full Text of Decision 14752

Having decided that the insured was not unemployed because he was operating a business whereas this business was not yet established, rather than referring to non-availability, CEIC erred in law, an error which was endorsed by the Board.

Decision 13145 Full Text of Decision 13145

Real estate agent working 50 hours per week in evenings and on weekends; board examined availability and allowed case; error of law.

Decision 11093 Full Text of Decision 11093

The Board seems to have given equal importance to claimant's very limited job search. This was not in issue. The grounds stated by the Commission was that claimant was not unemployed under s.10. Availability comes under s.14. Error in law.