Summary of Issue: Statement Of Facts Required

Decision 51676 Full Text of Decision 51676

Decided that the claimant's testimony was in flagrant contradiction with the facts in the file and that the members of the BOR did not explain why they accepted the testimony. Since this question was not answered, the matter is sent to a new BOR.

Decision A-0321.97 Full Text of Decision A-0321.97

Umpire dismissed argument that the BOR did not comply with the requirements to provide a statement of findings. FCA held that while the Act did not require a detailed statement of findings of facts, a BOR must, when there is an issue of credibility, state at least briefly, as part of its findings, that it rejects certain evidence on the basis of credibility and why. When a BOR fails to do so it errs in law. Case returned to a new BOR.

Decision A-0195.97 Full Text of Decision A-0195.97

Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.

Decision A-0297.97 Full Text of Decision A-0297.97

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. The FCA reiterated the necessity for the BOR to address the issues actually presented to them carefully and to explain their findings in coherent and consistent reasoning. Anything less is unacceptable.

Decision 38413 Full Text of Decision 38413

The BOR determined that the claimant had been negligent, but it seems to have immediately equated negligence with misconduct, without indicating its reasons for doing so, as required by subsection 79(2) of the Act. This omission on the part of the BOR constitutes an error justifying the quashing of its decision.

Decision 38185 Full Text of Decision 38185

Board of Referees said almost nothing with regard to its perception of the claimant's credibility and its assessment of the evidence in terms of availability. The lack of a statement of the findings of the Board of Referees on questions of fact material to the decision therefore constitutes an error in law under sections 79 and 80 of the Act.

Decision A-0355.96 Full Text of Decision A-0355.96

Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR's decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.

Decision 22273 Full Text of Decision 22273

The Board merely noted that the CEIC based its decision on similar CUB cases. It did not address and make a finding on the inconsistent statements made by the parties on the reason underlying the dismissal. It should have analyzed the evidence before itand come to a conclusion. Error of law.

Decision 22188 Full Text of Decision 22188

The Board failed to make any findings of fact material to its decision in the present case, but rather simply chose to parrot the determination of the insurance officer and state its opinion affirming the same. In my opinion, this omission constituted an error in law.

Decision 22082 Full Text of Decision 22082

It is well established that a Board commits an error in law when it simply echoes the determination of the Commission or states a bare opinion upholding the same without making any findings of fact material to its decision. I find that to be the case here.

Decision 18709A Full Text of Decision 18709A

The CEIC contends that the Board's decision fails to comply with the requirements of ss. 79(2) inasmuch as it contained no findings of fact, especially with regard to the 6 conditions prescribed by para. 57(4)(a) to (f). Unfortunately, I am bound to agree. This was an error of law.

Decision 17329 Full Text of Decision 17329

The decision of the Board manifestly fails to comply with ss.79(2). The Board merely found the penalties imposed were in order, but listed no facts on which it relied in reaching this decision. Failure to comply with 79(2) constitutes an error in law.

Decision 16648A Full Text of Decision 16648A

While accepting that the Commission was correct in its calculation, the Board states no evidence upon which it has reached that conclusion. Such failure is an error of law and gives rise to an inference that the Board did not have regard to material before it.

Decision 15338 Full Text of Decision 15338

The Board's decision provides only limited information as to findings of fact, so I am unable to determine whether claimant's job search and Union-Commission agreement regarding job search were considered. Inadequacy of record of decision amounts to error of law.

Decision 14398 Full Text of Decision 14398

The Board made an error of law in not complying with ss.79(2). The finding, "decision based according to facts in appeal docket", is patently absurd because those "facts" do not necessarily point to any decision, some being mutually contradictory.

Decision 14274 Full Text of Decision 14274

The Board stated "After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds no reason to change decision" and erred in law. Issue: misconduct and voluntary leaving. Blatant neglect of Board's duty to state findings of fact. Referred back to Board.