Summary of Issue: Jurisdiction Exceeded

Decision 69987 Full Text of Decision 69987

The Board of Referees in this case did exceed their jurisdiction by eliminating the penalty under s. 38 as assessed by the Commission. Once the Board of Referees confirm that the claimant had made a misrepresentation and made it knowingly, then the Commission had a right to impose a financial penalty which was followed by a notice of violation. The notice of violation automatically follows the penalty. The Board of Referees did not have the power to eliminate the penalty as it did not have the power to do that under s. 38 of the Act.

Decision A0455.06 Full Text of Decision A0455.06

In dealing with a case of insufficient hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits, the issue is whether the Board of Referees had the jurisdiction to decide to extend the qualifying period, a matter that had not been the subject of a decision by the Commission and was not properly before the Board. The Court ruled that both the Board and the Umpire exceeded their jurisdiction in extending the qualifying period. The proper avenue for the Board would have been to refer the matter back to the Commission under section 82 of the EIR for investigation and report.

Decision A-0542.02 Full Text of Decision A-0542.02

Claimant was disqualified for Volontary Leaving then finds new employment but does not work enough hours to re-qualify. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that neither the Board of Referees nor the Umpire had jurisdiction to review the original disqualification since it never had been appealed.

Decision 54922 Full Text of Decision 54922

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0542.02

Decision A-0016.94 Full Text of Decision A-0016.94

The issue before the Board was the length of the benefit period. However, the Board allowed benefit on the basis that claimant was available for work during a period of disentitlement. In deciding that question, the Board erred by answering a question which was not before it on the appeal.

Decision A-0371.93 Full Text of Decision A-0371.93

It is clear that the jurisdiction of the Board is in respect of decisions actually made or that should have been made by the Commission. The Board does not possess the jurisdiction to rule on a matter not raised by a claimant with the Commission.

Decision 17888 Full Text of Decision 17888

The Board ruled that claimant should be indefinitely disentitled. The Commission quite properly asked that this portion of the decision be rescinded, on the ground that by aswering a question that had not been put to it, the Board erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction.

Decision 14858A Full Text of Decision 14858A

Entitlement to adoption benefits at issue. The Board allowed an antedate to grant claimant such benefits. The Board has no jurisdiction to answer a question that was not put to it. See reg. 63. Here, the Commission made no decision regarding antedating.

Decision 12859 Full Text of Decision 12859

If the referees' [recommendation at the end of their decision] meant to impose a subsequent disentitlement on a different ground, then they acted beyond their jurisdiction. Otherwise it is simply to be ignored. Whether it ever becomes an issue is for the Commission to ponder.

Decision 11424 Full Text of Decision 11424

The majority answered a different question from that which was correctly posed and thereby miscontrued the law and exceeded their jurisdiction. Question: Was claimant unemployed? Decision: Claimant cannot claim benefits as unemployed as he was not available.

Decision 11396 Full Text of Decision 11396

The Commission ruled that claimant, a teacher on leave, was eligible for benefits from 16-4 to 29-6 and benefits were paid. The Board upheld the disentitlement for summer and found claimant not available from 16-4. This issue was not before the Board for a decision.

Decision 11005 Full Text of Decision 11005

The Board upheld the disentitlement from 13-1, then the CEIC terminated it 13-3. Claimant said that termination should be 12-2. This decision is not one of the Board but one made by the CEIC after the Board's decision. The latter decision has not been appealed and I have no authority to review it.