Decision 40727
Full Text of Decision 40727
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Umpire did not find that misconduct could be construed on the claimant's performance. Dissatisfaction with one's work does not mean that the person is guilty of misconduct. BOR has misconstrued the jusriprudence concerning misconduct and therefore has made an error in law in this case.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
misconduct |
incompetence |
|
|
Decision 36873A
Full Text of Decision 36873A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Umpires are bound by the rulings of the Federal Court of Appeal and must apply the law as it exists at the time when the appeal is before them. An Umpire is not free to disregard a decision of a higher authority simply because it was rendered following the BOR's decision.
Decision 25103
Full Text of Decision 25103
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
I have no hesitation in saying that the Board made an error in law in not considering the criteria in CUB 5454 as to whether or not the employment was minor in extent. Had they done so, they would have reached the conclusion, indubitably, that the employment was not minor in extent.
Decision 24461
Full Text of Decision 24461
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Claimant appealed this decision on the basis that she incurred personal expenses of $22,751.24 in order to buy back premiums to receive her pension. CUB 15683 quoted. Clearly, the decision of the Board goes against the jurisprudence and consequently the said Board erred in law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
pension |
own contributions |
|
Decision 23426
Full Text of Decision 23426
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
In my view, the failure of the Board to consider the Commission's responsibility to warn the claimant if it considered her job search too narrow before deciding she was disentitled to benefits constitutes an error in law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision A-1085.92
Full Text of Decision A-1085.92
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Ss. 43(2) has been interpreted by the Schwenk case (CUB 5454) to require that a Board of Referees must take into account six factors. The Umpire held that the Board had not appreciated the full context of the law which it was being asked to apply and correctly identified an error of law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 17055A
Full Text of Decision 17055A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1085.92
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 22495
Full Text of Decision 22495
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in allowing the case by blatantly ignoring the fundamental rule regarding non-availability of full-time students in university, and by placing undue and mistaken emphasis on an ancient history of part-time employment in a capacity other than that of student.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work long ago |
|
availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision 21808
Full Text of Decision 21808
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by ignoring the provisions of para. 14(a) and the developed body of case law pertaining to claimants taking courses, and applying instead its own test criterion of "special circumstances" for which there is no statutory mandate whatever.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 21529
Full Text of Decision 21529
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
I agree that the Board made errors of law and fact. It gave great emphasis to the small amount of money it considered the claimant made from his land. In doing so it was distorting the accepted legal criteria for self-employment, the revenue being only one element to consider.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Decision 21456
Full Text of Decision 21456
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board decided that ignorance of the law together with the good faith of the beneficiary were the sufficient justification required by para. 9(4). That is quite contrary to the principles in CARON T. The Board thus erred in law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Decision 19938
Full Text of Decision 19938
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Courses begin 5-9-88. Board clearly erred in law. Could not base itself on simple period of work during holidays, from 7-12-88 to 23-1-89 to come to conclusion beneficiary had established history of employment as set out in jurisprudence.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision A-1049.88
Full Text of Decision A-1049.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 15799
Full Text of Decision 15799
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1049.88
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision 16824
Full Text of Decision 16824
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
CUB 8330 quoted by Board that "just cause is made out only where there is an element of urgency, necessity or compulsion". That is not consistent with more recent jurisprudence in TANGUAY. Basically the standard conduct to be met is that of the "reasonable man". Error of law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 16675
Full Text of Decision 16675
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Found a job working 5 hours a week while he received benefits and stopped because of a strike. The Board erred in law: it does not matter that the job is not insurable. In accordance with SCHOEN, no distinction should be made between this type of employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 15389
Full Text of Decision 15389
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Left his job for which he was paid $300 a week and then asked for $500. I agree with that principle (that the insured person must be warned when his or her demands are too high in accordance with CUB-12842 and 14708). No time period was given. An error in law. Entitled to 8 weeks.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
availability for work |
restrictions |
wages or salary |
|
availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 14823
Full Text of Decision 14823
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Claimant had long been employed on a temporary contract basis. Last contract completed 30-6. Available as teacher or office worker. Chances of employment practically nil. Error of law. Well-settled law that some time must be allowed. Claimant re-employed 2-9.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 14550
Full Text of Decision 14550
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Many decisions have held that UI benefits are not intended as a subsidy to enable a claimant to pursue studies. To allow claimant to receive benefits while pursuing a difficult and demanding course would be contrary to jurisprudence and an error in law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 13115
Full Text of Decision 13115
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Error of law not to following principles stated in case law; context: restriction on availability and reasonable period to be allowed.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
availability for work |
restrictions |
geographical area |
|
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
Decision A-0765.85
Full Text of Decision A-0765.85
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
As per ABRAHAMS, the regularity of the work schedule must be considered. Worked on call from 10-11-82 to 25-7-83. The 678 hours and earnings of $3,154 here are unequally spread over many months. Error of law by Board: designated as regular what was irregular employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 11140
Full Text of Decision 11140
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0765.85
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 10631
Full Text of Decision 10631
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Board decided that end of stoppage had occurred on 14-9 because all work was completed on that date and all employees laid off as they were every year. Plainly erred in law. See IMBEAULT.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Decision A-0706.84
Full Text of Decision A-0706.84
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in interpreting CUB 5463. That CUB states that being on an unpaid leave is not conclusive of non-availability. It is not authority for the proposition that one is necessarily available.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
teaching |
availability for work |
deferred salary leave |
|
availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|