Summary of Issue: Binding Judgments

Decision 25519 Full Text of Decision 25519

The Board refused to proceed with the appeal, simply stating that, in a previous ruling a year earlier, the claimant was given benefits, that the ruling was not appealed and it concluded that it was bound by the precedent. This is an error, both in fact and law.

Decision 19723 Full Text of Decision 19723

The CEIC may decide not to appeal a particular decision of one Board for reasons having little to do with the merits of the decision but that does not commit the CEIC to following in all cases the decision of that Board. A previous decision of one Boardhere is not determinative. One Board is not bound by the decision of another but they are all bound by decisions of Umpires. Boards and Umpires are bound by decisions of the Federal Court. As a result, even if one Board decides one way, another may hold that the jurisprudence requires different decisions.

Decision 15511 Full Text of Decision 15511

Had the Board applied the reasoning in CUB 12949, it would have allowed claimant's appeal. The fact that the decision was under appeal was not a valid reason for the Board to ignore it. But that decision has since been overturned by FC.

Decision 14550 Full Text of Decision 14550

Of course a decision by a Board in another case is not binding on an Umpire nor does it even constitute jurisprudence.

Decision A-0233.79 Full Text of Decision A-0233.79

Reg. 166(2) was held to have been validly made in the exercise of the authority conferred by s.58(u) in LANGFORD. Since the ground of attack that is urged here did not have to be considered in LANGFORD, the decision in that case is not a bar to its consideration here. [p.13]