Decision 44831
Full Text of Decision 44831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Claimant was receiving $394.00 from the CSST while his weekly benefit rate was $402.00. He was therefore entitled to $8.00 a week. He had not claimed benefits while receiving the CSST compensation and therefore requested an extension of his benefit period. Request denied. Decision upheld by the Umpire under paragraph 10(10)(c) of the EI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Decision 41469
Full Text of Decision 41469
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 41322
Full Text of Decision 41322
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The initial benefit rate was wrongly calculated by the Commission. As a result of new information the rate was corrected. Umpire concluded that, while one can understand the annoyance of claimant, unfortunately it is the law which must be applied and in faling to do this, the BOR made in error in law. The error was detected and corrected by the Commission well within the time limit allowed by the legislation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 41366
Full Text of Decision 41366
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that it was not fair to convert his hours worked, 44 hours per week, and take into account only 35 hours per week under the Regulations, giving him only 735 hours of insurable employment when 910 hours were required. BOR reversed the Commission’s decision and allowed 44 hours per week. Umpire stated that it was the government that had chosen the rule of 35 hours, it being the average number of hours currently worked in Canada. He found that section 94.1 of the Regulations had been applied correctly and that BOR had erred in law in forgetting the relevant rules in the Act and Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Decision 40275
Full Text of Decision 40275
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
BOR committed an error by applying in their decision EI Act 29 (c)(iv) "any other reasonable circumstances that are prescribed". This means prescribed by regulations or determined in accordance with the rules prescribed by the regulations. It does not confer upon BOR the authority to adopt or prescribed what it considers to be other reasonable circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 39569
Full Text of Decision 39569
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Commission refused to extend the benefit period because the claimant could have demanded the difference between the benefit rate ($245/wk) and the preventative withdrawal settlement rate ($222/wk). The Board of Referees set aside this decision. Umpire found that subsection 9(7) does not apply to this case. The claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, since the amount of his settlement was less than his unemployment insurance benefits. The Board thus erred in its interpretation of this provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Decision 42015
Full Text of Decision 42015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in law in deciding that a benefit period started on a Wednesday since this is contrary to the EI Act which states that a benefit period starts on a Sunday.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Decision 38323
Full Text of Decision 38323
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Board applied the test of whether or not the children actually had been adopted by the claimant. However, that is not the test according to the wording of the provision. The correct test is whether or not the children had been placed for the purpose of adoption, rather than whether they had been adopted or not. Board erred in law by applying the incorrect test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
for the purpose of adoption |
|
|
| parental benefits |
actually placed |
|
|
| parental benefits |
charter |
|
|
Decision 37553
Full Text of Decision 37553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Having quit his job three weeks before expiration of his contract, the claimant was disqualified. While recognizing that claimant had voluntarily quit his job without just cause, the Umpire found that par. 28.3(1) (a) [ now 33(1) (a) ] which calls for a disentitlemnt rather than disqualification was applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Decision 20198
Full Text of Decision 20198
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1028.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
contract and labour agreement |
|
Decision A-1028.91
Full Text of Decision A-1028.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
We are all of the opinion that the Umpire was correct to decide that the Board had erred in law by interpreting a clear clause in the collective agreement governing the claimants in a manner which contradicted its text.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
contract and labour agreement |
|
Decision 21968
Full Text of Decision 21968
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board ignored the requirement of the Regulations to apply the test (ordinarily resident) to the claimant's circumstances in the week preceding the week for which he applied for benefits. I must therefore set aside the decision of the Board because of this error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Decision 21817
Full Text of Decision 21817
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by failing to apply the statutory test prescribed by 28(4)(d), namely whether claimant had no reasonable alternative to immediately leaving, having regard to all the circumstances, including working conditions constituting a danger to health or safety.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 21470
Full Text of Decision 21470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
In my view the Board erred in law. There is no question that the legislation requires that the rate of benefit will be 50% of claimant's average weekly insurable earnings if claimant has been disqualified for having refused employment. This is clearly spelled out in CUB 20795.
Decision 20498
Full Text of Decision 20498
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
It is not open to the Commission to treat the work of the claimant prior to 31-10-90 as that of a farm employee, in receipt of insurable employment income from her husband, and then seek to treat her as a self-employed person for terminating her UI. This is an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Decision 19780
Full Text of Decision 19780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The reasoning of the Board implies that evidence of the requirement in ss.10(4) that a lay period be a result of having worked a greater number of hours than are normally worked in a week, must be found in the contract. Error of law. The actual practiceis relevant. [p._8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
sharing employment |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 15281B
Full Text of Decision 15281B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board referred to both reg. 43 and 44, and said that claimant was working a full working week. Reg. 43 and 44 are mutually exclusive, and the Board must rely upon one or the other but not both. The Commission has acknowledged this error and agreed that the Board erred in law.
Decision 18216
Full Text of Decision 18216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Called back to work on 18-1; lock-out on 20-1. The Board considered that the employer did not act in good faith. No evidence in this regard. An error in law to say that the employer must show good faith within the meaning of Reg. 49.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Decision 16029
Full Text of Decision 16029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0106.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Decision A-0106.89
Full Text of Decision A-0106.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in concluding that leave pay and leave day (time off) were interchangeable and allocating leave pay on the basis that "the amount of earnings is that amount of accumulated leave pay from the first day of the month when he was laid off".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Decision A-0430.89
Full Text of Decision A-0430.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Benefit period established in 2-86 and terminated 9-86. The Umpire used ss. 7(2) enacted 4-87 to allow an extension of the qualifying period prior to 2-86. The Umpire erred in law in finding that 7(2) had retrospective effect.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 16978
Full Text of Decision 16978
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0430.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 17228
Full Text of Decision 17228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in ruling that the oath violated the claimant's Charter rights in the absence of specific sections of the Charter and applicable jurisprudence being before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
oath of employment |
|
|
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 14845
Full Text of Decision 14845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Spends 6 weeks convalescing in Switzerland. According to the board, he clearly should have obtained the approval of CEIC before leaving the country. Error in law, but this is of no help to the claimant because of Reg. 54(3).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 13226
Full Text of Decision 13226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Erroneous interpretation of an Act based on uncontested findings of fact constitutes error of law. Cited Pratte J.A. in ALBRECHT.
Decision A-0167.85
Full Text of Decision A-0167.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in holding that it is not necessary to classify vacation pay as earnings to authorize allocation thereof. Vacation pay, to be subject to allocation under reg. 58, must be earnings as defined by reg. 57.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 10737
Full Text of Decision 10737
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Car accident 31-7-83 which did not leave claimant completely incapacitated but rendered her unable to work. Claim filed 3-10-83. The Board held that "the Act clearly states that only total incapacity is acceptable as good cause" for antedating purposes.Error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
| antedate |
expecting compensation payments |
|
|
Decision 08839
Full Text of Decision 08839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Disentitled retroactively. She had disclosed her pregnancy but was paid by error. Decision overruled by the Board on the ground that no new facts were revealed for the Commission to open investigation of her file [p. 5]. New facts not required under s.43. Error of law. [p. 12-14]
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 A-0434.82
Full Text of Decision A-0434.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The fact that the collective agreement had expired was irrelevant to whether the strike was illegal, being in violation of the Ontario legislation. The Board, having based its conclusion that the loss of work was not due to misconduct on an irrelevant consideration, erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Decision A-0433.82
Full Text of Decision A-0433.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The fact that the collective agreement had expired was irrelevant to whether the strike was illegal, being in violation of the Ontario legislation. The Board, having based its conclusion that the loss of work was not due to misconduct on an irrelevant consideration, erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
