Summary of Issue: Decision Not To Reconsider

Decision 22862 Full Text of Decision 22862

Real estate agent; UIC erred in basing its decision on ss. 44(1), rather than para. 43(1)b). DOMINIQUE explained. It is unacceptable that UIC would give the claimant a notice citing s. 44 and subsequently indicate, in its submissions to the Board, that it was a case of application of ss. 43(1).

Decision 22208 Full Text of Decision 22208

Restriction: no nights. Decision: considered employed to full extent of availability. It is now suggested by CEIC that allowing a 5-week period would have been reasonable. This has never been discussed and assumes that she would have refused after warning to broaden her job search.

Decision 19688 Full Text of Decision 19688

Refer to: A-0516.91

Decision A-0516.91 Full Text of Decision A-0516.91

Notice of refusal 10-5 based on refusal of work. Appeal to Board 3-6. Amended notice sent 17-6: voluntary leaving nullifies first notice and gives new right of appeal. Second notice held unacceptable: not authorized by s. 43 (no monies paid) nor 86. Judgment upheld by FC.

Decision 19812 Full Text of Decision 19812

Sum having value of remuneration distributed according to Reg. 58(10); case granted by Board; appealed by CEIC stating Reg. 58(18)(b) applicable. CEIC cannot now change courses midstream and refer to 58(18)(b) as new motive.

Decision 17504 Full Text of Decision 17504

Claimant started to work in real estate in 5-86. Notice sent to her in 6-87 saying disentitled from 5-87. Board upheld disentitlement from 5-86. Claimant argues that 5-86 was not an issue. CEIC alleges typographical error and correct date is 5-86. Held that Board erred in law.

Decision 15302A Full Text of Decision 15302A

Claimant disentitled because he was engaged in business on his own account. The Board found he was not so engaged but was an employee. This should have settled the issue. It may well be he could have been disentitled on other grounds but Board limited to actual grounds invoked.

Decision 17120 Full Text of Decision 17120

CEIC must carefully choose the grounds on which it disqualifies the insured person and be able to prove those grounds. It appears that CEIC took the wrong direction by not referring to Reg. 43(1) and the notion of "co-venturer" but rather to Reg. 57(8).

Decision 15449A Full Text of Decision 15449A

Contract covering the period from 3-12-85 to 11-4-86, excluding the period from 22 to 29-12-85. The sum of $408 distributed from 22 to 29-12-85, in accordance with Regulation 58(3). Not a period of teaching within the meaning of 58(3). Too late for CEIC to rely on 58(4).

Decision 16183 Full Text of Decision 16183

The right to recall does not constitue employment. This is in fact refusal to apply for a job and not voluntary termination. The Board and the judge can only rule on the decision rendered and not on that which CEIC could have or should have made.

Decision 15223 Full Text of Decision 15223

It may be that CEIC could have disentitled her because her actions and attitude showed that she was not seriously interested in working. But it chose the fact she wished to work days only. The CEIC must choose its grounds carefully. It cannot switch grounds once appealed. [p. 5]

Decision 12746 Full Text of Decision 12746

The only issue is whether claimant is employed a full working week under reg. 44. Whether he was self-employed under reg. 43 does not enter into the question. The Commission cannot change the basis of disentitlement after appeal launched: see FINDENIGG.

Decision 12234 Full Text of Decision 12234

The fact situation here should have been dealt with under s.27, not 14(a). However, there is no authority to convert a notice of disqualification given for one reason into a disqualification for another. See VON FINDENIGG.

Decision T-2064.85 Full Text of Decision T-2064.85

Disqualified for voluntary leaving 6-5. Appeal filed 23-5. Amended notice showing misconduct sent 30-5. Board allows appeal regarding first notice and holds second notice as void. 3rd notice sent by CEIC showing misconduct. Writ of mandamus. Benefits to be paid under s. 87.

Decision 11097 Full Text of Decision 11097

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the Commission should choose its grounds carefully when it renders its decision, and should then be prepared to substantiate those grounds, and no others, if decision is appealed.

Decision 11108 Full Text of Decision 11108

Pleadings serve the purpose of defining the issues in courts of record and may do so even if the hearing be summary in nature. The Commission is not permitted to switch issues after claimant appeals.