Decision 52792
Full Text of Decision 52792
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant entitled to a maximum of 10 weeks of parental benefits and not the 35 weeks set out in Bill C-32. She appeals on the grounds that the specific provision infringes her right to equality as guaranteed by the Charter. Relying on the FCA decision in Nishri (A-0216.96), the umpire held that the cut-off date of Dec. 31, 2000 was simply a criteria selected by Parliament for determining whether a claimant will be governed by the old rules or the new rules and that it was not based on any personal characteristic of the claimant. Appeal dismissed.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
parental benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
Decision A-0216.96
Full Text of Decision A-0216.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a child on 5-09-90 (prior to the coming into force of Bill C-21 on 18-11-90). She received maternity benefits but was not eligible to parental benefits. The BOR dismissed the appeal: no jurisdiction to consider a Charter issue and so did the Umpire. The FCA held that Umpire failed to deal with the constitutional issue. The Umpire must find that a particular section of the Act contravenes the Charter and that it cannot be saved by Section1. The Court agreed however that Umpires cannot issue declarations of invalidity pursuant to SS.24(1) of the Constitutional Act. Such remedies are reserved to superior courts. Case returned for redetermination on the constitutional issues.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
Decision 22405
Full Text of Decision 22405
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that s.26 (course referrals) discriminates against her in the context of infringing rights guaranteed by ss.15(1) of the Charter. There can be no question that the Board acted correctly in declining to entertain any charter argument per se. See TÉTREAULT-GADOURY.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
courses of instruction or training |
charter |
legislation |
|
Decision 17026A
Full Text of Decision 17026A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
As I understand the decision TETREAULT-GADOURY however, it is that Boards have jurisdiction to decide whether or not a claimant is entitled to benefits but not whether or not a particular provision of a statute is to be suspended for being in violation of s.15 of the Charter.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
Decision 21007
Full Text of Decision 21007
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
The Board did not err in law by refusing to address the argument that the impugned statutory provisions regarding regional unemployment rates and statistical information violated claimant's guaranteed right of equality under s.15(1) of the Charter.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Decision 2122291
Full Text of Decision 2122291
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
The particular UI legislative scheme contemplates that constitutional questions be more appropriately presented to the Umpire, on appeal, rather than to the Board itself. The Board did not have jurisdiction to rule that s. 31 (severance benefit) violated the Charter.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
federal court |
role |
|
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
federal court |
appeal system |
levels |
|
board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 12543
Full Text of Decision 12543
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0521.86
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision A-0521.86
Full Text of Decision A-0521.86
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
It is clear that neither a Board nor an Umpire have the right to pronounce declarations as to the constitutional validity of statutes and regulations. That is a privilege reserved to the superior Courts.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|