Summary of Issue: Not Applying Jurisprudence


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
Date modified: