Decision A-0112.00
Full Text of Decision A-0112.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Although the facts were not disputed, the Board of Referees nonetheless allowed the claimant's appeal for reasons of sympathy and equity, ignoring the express provisions of the Act. The Umpire ruled that the BOR could not ignore the provisions of the Act, which it had a duty to apply. In a short decision, the Court ruled that the Umpire had properly determined that the BOR could not refuse to apply the Act for reasons of equity.
Decision 47187
Full Text of Decision 47187
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0112.00.
Decision 39982
Full Text of Decision 39982
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
BOR allowed appeal on the basis that claimant (re-entrant) was misinformed by Commission that she required 20 weeks on insurable employment to qualify instead of 26 weeks under the new legislation effective 30 July 1996. Despite the unfairness perceived in the lack of information provided by Commission, the Board had to apply the new legislation.
Decision 23794
Full Text of Decision 23794
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
He states very emphatically that he is pursuing the matter in an attempt to get the law changed. This is not an issue before the Umpire, as both the Umpire and the Board as well as the Commission itself, have to apply the law and regulations as they stand and have no discretion to make changes.
Decision 23619
Full Text of Decision 23619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The Board, like the Umpire, is obliged to apply the Act and regulations made under the Act. The Board, once again like the Umpire, has no mandate or discretion to do what might be seen to be "fair" or "just" unless, in so doing, it is applying the law to the fact situation before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
supplementary unemployment benefits |
|
|
Decision 20793
Full Text of Decision 20793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0373.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision A-0373.92
Full Text of Decision A-0373.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant was given wrong advice by CEIC staff in the course of moving from Regina to be with fiance in Hull. The Umpire correctly applied the rationale of the GRANGER case and was correct when he decided: The Commission in law owes her no benefits of any kind.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
A Board, like an Umpire, has no equitable jurisdiction under the Act. See GRANGER. To the extent that the Board's decision reflects equitable reasons, that decision would clearly be made in excess of its jurisdiction and would therefore be an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0978.88
Full Text of Decision A-0978.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
In GRANGER, Pratte wrote that a judge is bound by the law and cannot refuse to apply it even on grounds of equity. I adopt this view. To attempt to fashion an equitable remedy would be an improper intrusion into matters within exclusive competence of Parliament.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
charter |
|
|
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
interruption of earnings |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
a requirement |
|
Decision 14951A
Full Text of Decision 14951A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Neither the boards nor the umpires are appointed to criticize the Act. Their duty is to apply it even if they are not in agreement. Only Parliament and the Governor in Council can adopt laws and regulations. It is inappropriate to talk of injustice.
Decision 16041
Full Text of Decision 16041
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If sections of a statute do not cover all situations, it is for Parliament to remedy it if it deems this necessary, and not for judges to undertake by interpretation to fill any perceived gaps.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
sickness defined |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 15036
Full Text of Decision 15036
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If it is not the function of the Supreme Court to question the wisdom of enactments nor to adjudicate upon the merits of basic policies, it is certainly no part of the function of Boards to do so. They are obliged to avoid erring in law but must not question Parliament's wisdom.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 13410
Full Text of Decision 13410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0209.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Decision A-0209.87
Full Text of Decision A-0209.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
S. 24 has been applied to the letter but results in a denial of natural justice. The legislation clearly gives rise to this result. In this respect an Umpire has no more right to change the legislation than the Board, said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Decision S-0684.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
According to claimant, the Umpire erred because, to avoid causing injury to claimant, he should have refused to apply the Act. A judge is bound by the Act. He cannot refuse to apply it, even on grounds of equity, said the FC. Upheld by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid into rrsp |
|
Decision 14563
Full Text of Decision 14563
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
While claimant's case is a very sympathetic one, neither the Board nor an Umpire can decide the legal issues on the basis of sympathy nor their conception of what the law should provide. The law applies as it stands.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 14096
Full Text of Decision 14096
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
A correct application of law is not a denial of natural justice. If the law is unjust, it can only be changed by Parliament. The Commission has no discretion but to apply the law.
Decision 14076
Full Text of Decision 14076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
It is difficult in an imperfect world to make law the handmaiden of justice. What our society attempts to achieve is justice, but justice under the rule of law. This is the only way to avoid capricious treatment. Firm principles of law are the best way to get to justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 13343
Full Text of Decision 13343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant admits the legality of the decision (14 weeks out of the 16 required) but he thinks that the decision is unfair. Adjudicating authorities are all bound to interpret the law as it is, not what we think it should be. If changes are to be made, that is Parliament's duty.
Decision 12356
Full Text of Decision 12356
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If there is an unfairness, it arises from the provisions of the Act and Regulations which neither the Board of Referees nor an Umpire can alter. [p. 5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 12299
Full Text of Decision 12299
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
This hearing provided claimant with a forum to express his views, the vexing and difficult results of some UI practices. It is the duty of the Commission and tribunals to apply the law and the results would be much more grievous if the law were applied discriminately. [p. 2]
Decision 12250
Full Text of Decision 12250
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The strict application of the law often leads to results which seem unfair. However, the duty of the Umpire is to apply the law as it is to the facts of the case before him. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
| antedate |
charter |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 12181
Full Text of Decision 12181
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If the Act is to be changed it must be done by Parliament. The CEIC agent, the Board and the Umpire are bound by the Act as it now reads and must interpret it accordingly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Decision A-0398.85
Full Text of Decision A-0398.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
This result is insupportable on any rational appreciation of the policy of the Act. It is, nevertheless, the law and it is for Parliament, not the Court, to amend it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 11432
Full Text of Decision 11432
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The Umpire has no power to alter or amend the express provisions of the Act. Neither is that power vested in the Commission or a Board; the duty of all three is to apply the law as it is.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Decision 11232
Full Text of Decision 11232
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
CEIC's duty to administer the program according to law. At times application to an individual claimant appears unfair. To disregard the law in order to meet a hard case creates same unfairness to others. The prime rule is to apply law in consistent manner as is humanly possible.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision 11227
Full Text of Decision 11227
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Many claimants feel at times oppressed by the numerous and complex provisions of the UI Act. These produce from time to time consequences perhaps unintended by Parliament but which nevertheless must be respected if the doctrine of equal treatment is to be maintained.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision 11077
Full Text of Decision 11077
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The Umpire can only grant relief where some error can be found in the decision of the Board. The Umpire cannot correct weaknesses or errors or injustices in legislation. I can only apply the law as prescribed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Decision 10693
Full Text of Decision 10693
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
It is incumbent upon the CEIC and the Board to apply the law. Impressions of unfairness or inequitable application are no authority to the people entrusted with the administration of the statute to change the law. Changes in the law are Parliament's responsibility.
Decision 10230
Full Text of Decision 10230
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
One may well consider deeming reg. 37(5) to be unrealistic and unjust. However, neither the Board nor the Umpire is constituted to be a court of equity and both are obliged simply to apply the law as it is written. [p._8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision A-0373.82
Full Text of Decision A-0373.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Conclusion reached with some reluctance. But this Court, the Umpire, the Board and the Commission must apply the law as it appears that Parliament enacted it, irrespective of the sympathy that the plight of this claimant engenders. [p. 10-11]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision A-0852.81
Full Text of Decision A-0852.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 6 of the 10 weeks required to qualify. The Umpire allowed the case because refusal here would defeat the intent of the legislation although the letter of the law was not met. Error in law. The Interpretation Act does not allow departure from a clear provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision S-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The courts are strictly required to apply the law as written and may not depart from the clear meaning of the provisions enacted by Parliament to give effect to a presumed intention not expressed. [PIGEON J., p.18-19]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A-0392.78
Full Text of Decision A-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The courts are strictly required to apply the law as written and may not depart from the clear meaning of the provisions enacted by Parliament to give effect to a presumed intention not expressed. [PIGEON J., p.18-19]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
