Decision 72285
Full Text of Decision 72285
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant voluntarily left his employment. He was sick for a couple of days and he was in hospital. He did not report to work and did not call the employer to advise of his absence. When he went back to work the employer told him he was no longer needed because he had been replaced. The appeal of the Commission is allowed and the decision of the Board set aside as being an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
leave not requested |
|
Decision A0139.07
Full Text of Decision A0139.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
|
|
Summary:
This case involves an employer appeal of a second Umpire's decision to refer the matter back to a third new board of referees to consider all the evidence in regard to a penalty for issuing a false record of employment. The Court said a Board must justify its conclusions. When the Board is confronted with contradictory elements of evidence, it cannot ignore them. If the Board decides to discard the elements of evidence or to attribute little or no weight to them, it must explain its reasons. The Umpire was justified in chastising the Board for ignoring initial claimant statements spontaneously given in favour of subsequent statements changed and adjusted to suit statements of other persons - this raises an important question of credibility which the Board had the duty to appreciate and justify in its conclusion.
Decision A0369.06
Full Text of Decision A0369.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
|
|
Summary:
The Court was of the opinion that the BOR ignored the documented proof on file tending to demonstrate that the claimant operated a business and did not look for work during the period in question. The Court considered that the Board could have for valid reasons dismissed these facts upon due weighting and appreciation but the Board could not just ignore them in their decision. The Court considered that the Umpire should have intervened on this point to order a new hearing.
Decision A-0145.03
Full Text of Decision A-0145.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
The claimant took a leave of absence from her part-time employment in order to pursue her studies. The Court agreed with the Commission that both the BOR and the Umpire erred in failing to consider the reason why the claimant left her employment and to deal with the reasonable alternatives aspect of the case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision A-0442.96
Full Text of Decision A-0442.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the Board of Referees erred in law since it did not properly consider the evidence of the claimant’s employment in previous years. He found that the claimant had certainly demonstrated that she had a history of work and school leading to the conclusion that she could fulfil the conditions set out in s. 14(a) of the Act. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision since he had the authority to intervene and decide on all the issues of law and fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision A-0719.91
Full Text of Decision A-0719.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, established jurisprudence has confirmed that a student taking full-time courses is not available. This rule is subject to 2 exceptions: a student referred to a course and one who has established a pattern of work and studies. Errow in law. Observation too categorical.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
Decision 20021
Full Text of Decision 20021
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0719.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Decision 21808
Full Text of Decision 21808
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by ignoring the provisions of para. 14(a) and the developed body of case law pertaining to claimants taking courses, and applying instead its own test criterion of "special circumstances" for which there is no statutory mandate whatever.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 20613
Full Text of Decision 20613
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by ignoring the fundamental rule applicable to full-time students not referred to the course and attaching undue credence to self-serving assertions of work availability outside of class hours, in the absence of any history of part-time employment activity.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 20599
Full Text of Decision 20599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 20600
Full Text of Decision 20600
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Board's error in law. It in fact considered only one element, to wit that the student was ready to drop her course if someone called her for work as she had family obligations. This fact alone is not sufficient.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 19938
Full Text of Decision 19938
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Courses begin 5-9-88. Board clearly erred in law. Could not base itself on simple period of work during holidays, from 7-12-88 to 23-1-89 to come to conclusion beneficiary had established history of employment as set out in jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 16095A
Full Text of Decision 16095A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Left teaching work to be closer to university. The courses required him to attend 6 hours a week but on 4 separate mornings. He said he would be available when not attending classes. The Board gave proper effect to the well established presumption. No error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
employment left |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
time required for studies |
|
Decision 16165
Full Text of Decision 16165
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Leaves full-time work to attend a course. The CEIC contends that the Board erred in considering a history of work and school that occurred 4 years earlier. No error of law nor perverse or capricious finding. Non-availability not automatic. Presumption may be rebutted. Job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work long ago |
|
Decision 14677
Full Text of Decision 14677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
The Board agreed that he is attending a course to which not referred and therefore is disentitled. The issue was availability. The Board misdirected itself and erred in law by failing to consider the usual tests of availability. Non-referral is not an absolute prohibition. [p._7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Decision 14550
Full Text of Decision 14550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Many decisions have held that UI benefits are not intended as a subsidy to enable a claimant to pursue studies. To allow claimant to receive benefits while pursuing a difficult and demanding course would be contrary to jurisprudence and an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 11679A
Full Text of Decision 11679A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
Error of law to say that availability evenings and weekends is not what Act requires. While there is presumption that students not available, not sufficient to say this; must examine facts of case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
extent of availability required |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Decision 10955
Full Text of Decision 10955
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Summary:
For the past 2 years claimant worked full-time at night and attended a full-time course during the day. The Board made an error in law. We have here the type of case that proves the exception to the general rule that attendance at courses precludes availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Decision 42165
Full Text of Decision 42165
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Although the claimant showed that he had a history of working and going to school, he was not granted any reasonable period of time, and he was refused benefits. According to the Umpire, BOR erred in law in not taking this situation into account by granting a reasonable period of three months, given his undisputed history of working and going to school and the claimant's availability to work part-time while attending school 15 to 18 hours a week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
after reasonable period of time |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Decision A-0442.96
Full Text of Decision A-0442.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the Board of Referees erred in law since it did not properly consider the evidence of the claimant’s employment in previous years. He found that the claimant had certainly demonstrated that she had a history of work and school leading to the conclusion that she could fulfil the conditions set out in s. 14(a) of the Act. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision since he had the authority to intervene and decide on all the issues of law and fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 15799
Full Text of Decision 15799
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1049.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision A-1049.88
Full Text of Decision A-1049.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 16915
Full Text of Decision 16915
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Disentitled after 4 months: too restrictive. She was not given any warning. When she got a notice of disentitlement, she broadened her availability. She should have been given a 4-week period to remove restrictions. Error in law in not considering absence of warning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 15389
Full Text of Decision 15389
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Left his job for which he was paid $300 a week and then asked for $500. I agree with that principle (that the insured person must be warned when his or her demands are too high in accordance with CUB-12842 and 14708). No time period was given. An error in law. Entitled to 8 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
wages or salary |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 14823
Full Text of Decision 14823
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Claimant had long been employed on a temporary contract basis. Last contract completed 30-6. Available as teacher or office worker. Chances of employment practically nil. Error of law. Well-settled law that some time must be allowed. Claimant re-employed 2-9.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 14576
Full Text of Decision 14576
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Whether one is available and seeking employment is a question of mixed law and fact. The construction of the word "available" is a matter of law; its application to the particular circumstances is a matter of fact.
The Board believed that the legal status of availability requires that the job search be conducted in some way other than by telephone. This is incorrect. No such requirement exists. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
how to search |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
number of contacts |
|
Decision 13736
Full Text of Decision 13736
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Umpires in CUBs 3281, 8574 and 8741 have ruled that a claimant is not available when his priority is to return to the former employer. That is sound law, not an error in law. He had no guarantee that he would be rehired.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
specific employer |
|
Decision 12606
Full Text of Decision 12606
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Job search list ignored by Board simply because it was incomplete as to dates, persons contacted and addresses. Error in law. No such requirement in legislation. The Board should have made its own decision as to whether claimant's availability was proven.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
Decision A-1294.83
Full Text of Decision A-1294.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Board of referees could not conclude, without erring in law, that the claimant was entitled to benefit solely because she had asked to be reinstated in her employment before the end of the leave and had found a babysitter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
Decision A-0613.81
Full Text of Decision A-0613.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Summary:
Whether a person who is able to work only from 4:00 p.m. because she is unable to find a babysitter, should be considered available because she has made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter is at least partly a question of law. [p.12]
The Umpire erred in law when he concluded that, notwithstanding claimant's restrictions as to hours, she was available because she had made reasonable efforts to find a babysitter. [p.14]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision 42158
Full Text of Decision 42158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 13 false or misleading statements. The claimant admitted having devoted all his time to his business and not making job searches, whereas on his cards, he said that he was not working and was available. Umpire found that the BOR had clearly erred in law in deciding that he had not knowingly made false or misleading statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
| self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 36927
Full Text of Decision 36927
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in principle by ignoring direct, oral evidence which was subject to cross-examination, in favour of indirect hearsay that was not subject to testing by cross-examination. BOR gave its decision without regard for the material before it. Matter is referred back before a newly constituted Board of Referees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 36862
Full Text of Decision 36862
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
BOR based its conclusion solely on the medical certificates and ignored all other reasons given by claimant seeking early retirement. BOR's decision was made without regard to the totality of the material before it, and hence, must be reversed on the facts. In failling to distinguish between "personal reasons" and "just cause" for voluntary leaving his job is erroneous in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0510.96
Full Text of Decision A-0510.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire and Board of Referees erred in deciding that the claimant should have produced a doctor’s certificate to support her claim that she had no alternative but to leave her employment. It is obvious that she was not claiming to have an illness when she said that working in a standing position hurt her feet. She simply found employment in a restaurant too difficult from a physical point of view. Since no one doubted her credibility, a certificate would have added nothing to her testimony.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hard work |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0355.96
Full Text of Decision A-0355.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
documentary evidence |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision A-0281.95
Full Text of Decision A-0281.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision 25973A
Full Text of Decision 25973A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0281.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision 31080
Full Text of Decision 31080
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Misconduct. Hearsay evidence acceptable in U.I. cases. No obligation on the part of an employer to be present at a hearing. The Boards of Referees are masters of the facts, but in this case, the Board was too demanding when it indicated the kind of evidence that it wanted: error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 28232
Full Text of Decision 28232
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Nature of payment made related to wrongful dismissal. Such a factual issue must be resolved, not by giving a party the benefit of the doubt, but by determining whether the party bearing the burden of proof (the claimant) has proved his case. The Board erred in law by not applying the correct test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 24384
Full Text of Decision 24384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
To the extent that the Board seems to have given the Commission the burden of proving the unemployment, it has clearly erred in law. It also erred as to the type of proof required while ruling that such proof must be convincing enough, i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 22637
Full Text of Decision 22637
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The correct standard is the civil standard of proof on a preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. In my view the Board erred in law in finding that misconduct had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 21689
Full Text of Decision 21689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
There was also a serious error of law. The Board accepted that as a matter of law earlier statements of a claimant are to be given credibility over later statements. This is not representative of the law. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but that is not an invariable rule.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 21559
Full Text of Decision 21559
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board dismissed the appeal since neither claimant nor the employer being present, it was unable to establish his or their credibility. The Board should have proceeded according to its perception of the weight to be attached to the conflicting documentation. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 21503
Full Text of Decision 21503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
In view of the greater credibility generally granted the statements of a beneficiary previous to an unfavourable decision, as compared to those subsequently made within the context of an appeal, I believe I am justified in intervening here to rescind the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from a Commission agent |
|
Decision 21455
Full Text of Decision 21455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
In saying CEIC did not prove the services rendered were rendered full-time and that the insured was not rendering them for free, the Board clearly contravened para. 40(1) which puts this burden on the beneficiary. That was an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
Decision 21287
Full Text of Decision 21287
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Merely disbelieving claimant is not sufficient for a conclusion that he knowingly made a false statement, as per McDONALD. Clearly, the Board committed a serious error of law by dismissing claimant's appeal on the misrepresentation issue, based on its adverse credibility finding.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 20599
Full Text of Decision 20599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by imposing upon CEIC the burden of proving that the beneficiary was not available. This burden falls upon the beneficiary and not upon CEIC. It also erred in fact and in law by taking into account search for employment conducted before the beginning of the course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
onus of proof |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 19647
Full Text of Decision 19647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
I am of the opinion that Arbitration Board erred in law by exempting, as it did, the beneficiary from the burden of proving her availability on pretext she held down a job where she was on call.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
employed |
Decision 19597
Full Text of Decision 19597
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board allowed the case because the Commission and the employer had been unable to prove the criminal charges against claimant because the trial had not yet taken place. This is clearly an error of law. PERUSSE referred to. Findings of court not determinative of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 19516
Full Text of Decision 19516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
I do not interpret the Board's decision as meaning that it was finding hearsay evidence to be inadmissible. It was simply finding such evidence to be unconvincing. The decision went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. No error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
Decision 16768
Full Text of Decision 16768
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Obviously, the Board erred in law in its assessment of the burden of proof. While subsection 40(1) places on the claimant the burden of proving his entitlement in every case, this proof must be established on the balance of probabilities and not "beyond all doubt".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Decision 15206A
Full Text of Decision 15206A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The majority decision is erroneous in applying a "without any doubt" test. This is an error of law. It is clear that the correct evidentiary burden is one of "probabilities": is it more probable than not that payments received came out of a pension which was not a private plan.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
Decision 14879
Full Text of Decision 14879
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Obviously, the Board based its decision on a burden of proof that is too demanding. The insured does not have to prove her availability beyond all reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to do so by weight of evidence. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision 14084
Full Text of Decision 14084
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Board did say that the case law places greater weight on a first statement. Not error of law. Principle itself is not a legal or evidenciary rule. It is a common sense rule that every reasonable person would adopt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 13377
Full Text of Decision 13377
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in treating the normal preference for earlier statements as a rule of law rather than as a rule of thumb. While normally they may be regarded as more reliable, in the context here they were made where the central issue wassomething else.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 13213
Full Text of Decision 13213
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Reported no work even though earned $320. Fact that board said that claimant did not rebut presumption created by all circumstances and statements constitutes error of law. There is no presumption of guilt.
Decision 12014
Full Text of Decision 12014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Error of law not to ask whether CEIC has proved that claimant made statement knowing it to be false.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision A-1498.84
Full Text of Decision A-1498.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board had no valid reason to ignore the sworn declaration of the claimant to the effect that he had been given wrong information by an employee of the Commission. The Board, contrary to what was decided by the Umpire, erred in law in ignoring that evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
under oath |
|
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
credibility |
|
Decision 11085
Full Text of Decision 11085
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
One must keep in mind that for a penalty to be imposed, claimant must have known the statement to be false. The onus is on Commission to prove that. The Board erred in law when it said claimant did not satisfy the Board she did not knowingly make false statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
availability for work |
|
|
Decision A-1873.83
Full Text of Decision A-1873.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Umpire wrote, "I do not see how any Board can be asked to make a finding of misconduct, except upon some direct evidence of it". We are all of opinion that this is an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 21161
Full Text of Decision 21161
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board did not determine if the claimant's self-employed activities were so minor in extent as to be such that they would not normally be followed as a principal means of livelihood. To fail to address the issue of minor in extent is an error in law.
Decision 18068
Full Text of Decision 18068
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The main reason the Board's decision cannot stand is that it committed an error of law in not considering whether, despite the fact that the claimant was engaged in a co-adventure, that activity was so minor in extent as to fall under reg. 43(2).
Decision 16650
Full Text of Decision 16650
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
It has been held in a number of cases that it is an error in law not to consider whether an activity is so minor in extent under reg. 43(2). It is the Board's responsibility to consider 43(2). Six factors are set out in CUB 5454 to be considered.
Decision 15923
Full Text of Decision 15923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board erred in part when it found that claimant was not available. The issue related to claimant's employment under ss.21(1) and reg. 43(1)(b), not whether he was available. The Board also erred in law by failing to consider whether the employment was minor in extent.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
preparatory activities in commencing business |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision 15652
Full Text of Decision 15652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board did not consider whether claimant's activities were minor in extent. This failure constituted an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
applicability |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
restaurants |
|
|
Decision 15332
Full Text of Decision 15332
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
This Board erred in law in failing to consider whether the employment was so minor in extent that a person would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.
Decision 14001
Full Text of Decision 14001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0715.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision A-0715.87
Full Text of Decision A-0715.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board totally ignored ss. 43(2) as to whether claimant's employment was minor in extent. Since this was an error in law, the Umpire allowed the appeal. Judgment quashed by FC because Umpire failed to make a finding under ss. 43(2).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 12922A
Full Text of Decision 12922A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board committed an error in law by failing to address itself to the question of the possible application of reg. 43(2). Case referred back to the Board.
Decision 13687
Full Text of Decision 13687
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board's decision contains an error of law. No determination is made as to whether the claimant's self-employment activities were minor in extent.
Decision 13103
Full Text of Decision 13103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
If board decides that claimant falls under Reg. 43(1), it has obligation to ask whether insured's employment in business minor in extent within meaning of 43(2); otherwise, error of law.
Decision 12905
Full Text of Decision 12905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
Board did not consider Reg. 43(2). This omission is undeniably an error of law. Nonetheless, apepars that insured devoted too much time and energy not to want to make it his principal means of livelihood.
Decision 12061A
Full Text of Decision 12061A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The simple affirmation that the claimant is self-employed cannot justify the Board's decision to disentitle without giving consideration to reg. 43(2). Error in law.
Decision 12759
Full Text of Decision 12759
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
In omitting to address itself to the possible application of reg. 43(2), the Board undeniably committed an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 11918
Full Text of Decision 11918
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
In failing to pay any regard to the saving provisions of reg. 43(2), the Board committed a serious error in law.
Decision 11266
Full Text of Decision 11266
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
It was an error of law by the Board to merely conclude that because claimant had the intention of making his business his main means of livelihood, he was unavailable, without giving consideration to whether this employment was so minor in extent.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board addressed its mind only to whether claimant engaged in own business; it did not consider whether activities minor in extent. It therefore failed to exercise its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. [p. 8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision A-0270.96
Full Text of Decision A-0270.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
Umpire ruled that it was up to the Board of Referees to consider the ultimate question, which concerned not only which of the two versions had to be preferred, but whether, even if the employer’s version were set aside, the testimony of the claimant could be relied upon, given his previous statements. The BOR had a duty to weigh the testimony and previous statements with care, but preferred to accept the claimant’s testimony and ignored the contradictions on the record. The FCA agreed with the Umpire’s decision to set aside the decision of the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision A-0696.94
Full Text of Decision A-0696.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Board having failed to deal with the issue of penalty, the umpire allowed the appeal concerning the false statements and eliminated the penalty. The Federal Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the umpire so that he may refer the case to the Board to decide on the issue which was not dealt with.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 25933
Full Text of Decision 25933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0696.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 18145
Full Text of Decision 18145
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Board effectively failed to deal with the evidence presented by the claimant as to the information she had previously received from the CEIC. Absent any finding by the Board as to the claimant's credibility, its failure to consider that evidence constitutes an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
rationale |
|
|
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 18058
Full Text of Decision 18058
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
Both decisions make no assessment of whether claimant's decision to elect voluntary lay-off was made with "just cause". They merely find that he voluntary left his employment. This is an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
commuting |
distance too great |
|
Decision 16648A
Full Text of Decision 16648A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Board erred in law or declined to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to calculate insurable earnings and resulting rate of benefit. To this end, the Board may refer questions to the Commission for investigation and report pursuant to reg. 65.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 15896
Full Text of Decision 15896
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
After having reached the conclusion that this constitues voluntary termination, the Council had to examine the reasons why the insured took this course of action. Failure to do so constitues an error in law. The Board must examine this aspect and reach a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 14001
Full Text of Decision 14001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0715.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision A-0715.87
Full Text of Decision A-0715.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Umpire noted that the Board had totally ignored the issue raised by ss. 43(2). He set aside the Board's decision, making no direction or other finding. This failure amounted to a refusal of jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision 14251A
Full Text of Decision 14251A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Board reduced the disqualification to 3 weeks but the issues of misconduct or voluntarily leaving were not addressed at all by the Board and that constitutes an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Decision 14630
Full Text of Decision 14630
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
Board prepared to give claimant some benefit of doubt by reducing disqualification. Error in law. It did not determine what, if any, conduct amounted to misconduct and whether job lost by reason thereof. It is only after making such determination that length may be examined.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 14308
Full Text of Decision 14308
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Summary:
The Board looked only to the voluntary leaving and failed to address the question of just cause. That failure constituted an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
not definite |
|
Decision 55346
Full Text of Decision 55346
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
BOR must provide all parties with the full opportunity to present their respective cases including the opportunity to fully respond to documentary evidence introduced by another party at the hearing. Failure by the Board to grant the claimant's request for time to review the documents constitutes a breach of natural justice.
Decision A-0211.01
Full Text of Decision A-0211.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
Suggestion was made in the FCA that the Commission had provided insights to BOR with information as to the content of questions that a claimant is required to answer on the Teledec system. This hardly satifies the fairness test. The BOR is an independent tribunal separate and apart from the Commission. Information about questions and answers specific to a particular case must be put before the BOR in that case and a claimant must know what simple question it is alleged he wrongly answered, in order that he have a fair opportunity to provide an explanation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
documents missing |
|
Decision A-0779.98
Full Text of Decision A-0779.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
The FCA stated that the claimant having not placed before the Umpire any affidavit deposing as to the irregularities alleged by her, it would be pure speculation on his part to deal with the procedural fairness of the BOR. The FCA further added that complaints of procedural unfairness give rise to one of the rare circumstances where fresh evidence can be placed before an Umpire without leave.
Decision 50753
Full Text of Decision 50753
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0211.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0732.97
Full Text of Decision A-0732.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0733.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Decision A-0733.97
Full Text of Decision A-0733.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
An adjournment was first requested in Nov. 94. Then a statutory declaration was filed stating that the claimant would be back in the country only in June 95. A hearing date was set for August 9, 1995. One day prior the hearing, a fax requesting another adjournment was filed. Request denied and the BOR proceeded with the case. Umpire ruled that there was no obligation on the BOR to try and reach the claimant by telephone as they could rely on the statutory declaration that the claimant and her husband would be back by June. The FCA simply refused to interfere with the Umpire's review of the BOR discretion to refuse another adjournment. No denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Decision 40833A
Full Text of Decision 40833A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0779.98
Decision A-0380.97
Full Text of Decision A-0380.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
Claimant is Francophone. At the hearing before the Umpire, the presentation made by the Commission’s representative was delivered entirely in English. The interpreter began to stumble, and stopped translating. Despite the claimant’s objections, the Umpire did not see fit to respond. Consequently, the claimant was unable to understand what was being presented, and could not respond with full knowledge of the matter. FCA found that such an infringement of the principles of natural justice necessarily vitiated the procedure before the Umpire, and hence the decision resulting from it. The matter was referred back to another Umpire for re-hearing in a manner that would fully respect the principles of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Decision 36621A
Full Text of Decision 36621A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0733.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Decision 36620A
Full Text of Decision 36620A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0733.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Decision A-0928.96
Full Text of Decision A-0928.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a complaint before the FCA because, in allowing her own preliminary objection and upholding her appeal, the BOR deprived her of her right to a hearing. However, when she appeared before the Umpire, the claimant did not attempt to correct the situation that she herself had created. FCA determined that the Umpire had not breached the rules of natural justice and dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
number of disqualifications |
|
|
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
Decision 13536
Full Text of Decision 13536
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law when it failed to find that there had been a breach of natural justice in the treatment accorded by the Commission to the claimant: the right to have his claim processed quickly and objectively and to expect assistance as noted inthe brochure.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
clarification |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
how to search |
|
Decision 54827
Full Text of Decision 54827
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Two letters, one for undeclared earnings and the other for false statements, were sent to claimant on March, 1996. Claimant filed a notice of appeal on May, 2001. Appeal denied by Commission but upheld by the BOR who reviewed evidence from the claimant and substituted its discretion for that of the Commission. Error in law found by Umpire: the only issue for determination by the BOR is whether the Commission exercised its discretion judicially. The BOR erred in its failure to deal with that issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0773.00
Full Text of Decision A-0773.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Issue: Can a BOR or an Umpire suspend an extra hours penalty (following the issuance of a notice of violation) imposed by the Commission pending the determination of an appeal against the penalty itself? No. The FCA held that the principle of criminal justice that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is not applicable when the Commission has exercised its power to impose an administrative penalty on a person whom it believes is in breach of a statutory duty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision 49609
Full Text of Decision 49609
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0773.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of hours |
|
Decision A-0314.98
Full Text of Decision A-0314.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Commission's decision dated 01-02-96 but claimant's appeal filed only 7 months later. Claimant invoked his difficulty with the English language for not appealing earlier. Request to extend the delay of appeal denied both by BOR and Umpire. The FCA held that the facts on file were reasonable to have the BOR and the Umpire infer that the claimant had a good command of the English language. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed.
Decision 46859
Full Text of Decision 46859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant notified on June 4, 1998 that he was not entitled to benefits but did not file an appeal until March 23, 1999, that is nine months after he received the letter. The BOR concluded that the claimant had acted as a reasonable person because he had relied upon the union steward's advice. BOR erred in law in relying on the Albrecht case. The legislation authorizes the Commission to extend the time beyond the 30 day period "for special reasons". The test is not one of "good cause". The BOR has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Commission's exercise of discretion unless there is evidence that the Commission acted arbitrarily or in a non judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 46455
Full Text of Decision 46455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant notified of a penalty by a letter dated 11-07-1997. Appeal lodged in March 1998. Claimant explained the delay saying that he moved from his old address and received the mail late at his new address. The claimant admitted before the Umpire that he had not kept the Commission informed of his current address which is a requirement of SS.50(9) of EIA. Power to grant an extension to the 30 day appeal period is a discretionary power that belongs to the Commission and no evidence that the Commission exercised its discretion in a non-judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
| claim procedure |
address of normal place of residence |
change |
|
Decision A-0194.98
Full Text of Decision A-0194.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Decision suspending benefits issued in 1989 but claimant did not appeal before April 1996, which was one year later after he inquired about the status of his o/p. Both the Commission and the BOR refused to extend the appeal delay. Umpire allowed the appeal ruling that the Commission had failed to advise the claimant of his right to appeal when it wrote to the claimant in May 1995 after his inquiry about the o/p. Umpire's decision quashed by the FCA: no evidence that the Commission or the BOR failed to exercise its discretion judicially and Umpire erred when he considered the notice of o/p issued in May 1995 to be a decision of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 44167
Full Text of Decision 44167
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The severity of the penalty is subject to the Commission's discretion, although the Commission must work within a certain framework and certain limits. The Commission decided on the severity of the penalty with full knowledge of exactly the same facts that BOR took into account in reducing the penalty. In such circumstances, what is involved is not a discretionary decision by the Commission that can be corrected or cancelled. BOR members may view the same circumstances differently from the Commission, but this is not sufficient grounds to entitle BOR to revise the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 42158
Full Text of Decision 42158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant informed on 18-07-95 that he was not eligible for the SEA program because he had been operating his business since 04-03-94 and one of the conditions for participation in this program is that the business must not already be in operation. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law in reversing this decision since only the Commission has the discretionary power to accept or refuse a claimant's participation in the SEA program.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 41004
Full Text of Decision 41004
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0314.98
Decision 40484
Full Text of Decision 40484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0194.98.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 38100
Full Text of Decision 38100
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
From the moment misconduct is established, it is the employer's responsibility to decide on the appropriate sanction. In the proceeding, the Board could not replace the employer's opinion as to the appropriate punishment with its own. The Board therefore erred in taking the liberty to recommend a graduated sanction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
Decision A-0432.96
Full Text of Decision A-0432.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Claimant's son picked up notices of decision dated 28-9-94 and put them in a drawer. Claimant was told of the letters in 11-94 and, while outside the delay, promptly notified the Commission of his desire to appeal. The Commission refused to extend the time. Both the BOR and the Umpire refused to interfere. The FCA allowed the application on the basis that the BOR had erred in law when considering the test for an extension of time to appeal to be whether or not there was "good cause" for the delay rather than considering the possibility of allowing an extension "for special reasons" as stipulated in the legislation. In so finding, the FCA made it clear however that they didn't accept the claimant's submission that he could not be considered to have received the notice of the Commission's decision until he found it in his house.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay not substantial |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| claim procedure |
good cause |
negligence |
|
Decision A-0709.95
Full Text of Decision A-0709.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
In exercising its discretionary power, the Commission judicially refused to extent the appeal period. However, the Board of Referees allowed the claimant to appeal in spite of the fact that she did this after the deadline. FCA found that the BOR could not, in this case, substitute its discretion for that of the Commission, unless it seemed that the Commission had not exercised its discretion judicially by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant ones.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 31825
Full Text of Decision 31825
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
There is a clear intention (s.86 of the Act) that it is only the BOR that gave the original decision that may entertain new facts and then, if appropriate, rescind or amend its earlier decision. (reference made to Brière v. CEIC)
Decision 25202
Full Text of Decision 25202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Reasons given by the CEIC in support of its refusal to extend the time period were insufficient to determine whether the discretionary decision was made judicially on the basis of relevant considerations. The Board therefore erred in law in saying that the decision was in accordance with the UI Act.
Decision 21716
Full Text of Decision 21716
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board clearly erred in law by substituting its discretion for that of the Commission in finding that claimant's confusion regarding the appeal procedure constituted sufficient special reason for reversing the decision of the insurance officer in rejecting the late appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 17390A
Full Text of Decision 17390A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law when it held that the CEIC decision not to refer N.S. residents was wrong. It lacked the jurisdiction to make that determination, there being no proof of abuse of administrative discretion or bad faith by those officers authorizedto make that decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discrimination |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
appeal |
|
Decision 16789
Full Text of Decision 16789
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Earnings reported but not deducted. The Commission's conduct was careless and I recommend it write off at least a portion of the overpayment of $3,300. Nevertheless, I must reiterate my view in CUB 13015 that I have no jurisdiction to write off. The Board erred in law.
Decision 16133
Full Text of Decision 16133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by considering the claimant to have been referred to a course by CEIC. It cannot substitute itself to CEIC to exercise the Commission's sole discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
appeal |
|
Decision 12670
Full Text of Decision 12670
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law and in fact. It has no authority to designate a course as an approved one under ss.26(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
appeal |
|
Decision A-0168.80
Full Text of Decision A-0168.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Summary:
Insured stated that he had not received the forms sent to him by the CEIC. Umpire allowed the case because in his opinion the CEIC should have used 55(10). Error of law. Only the CEIC may exercise that power. The Umpire therefore exceeded his jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
discretionary power waiver or variation of requirements |
|
|
Decision 65055
Full Text of Decision 65055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees changed the noted violation to a minor violation as a result of reducing the penalty. The evidence on record shows that this was a subsequent violation and the Umpire found that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and rendered a decision which is wrong in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision A-0353.01
Full Text of Decision A-0353.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
A penalty imposed by the Commission that is reduced to zero by the Board of Referees amounts to no penalty at all and, in reality, is a usurpation of power that resides exclusively in the Commission under the legislation. Where, however, mitigating circumstances are shown to the BOR, the Board may reduce the quantum of the penalty to an amount that it considers commensurate with those circumstances. Reference made to the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0715.95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0417.01
Full Text of Decision A-0417.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 52722
Full Text of Decision 52722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The FCA has stated in a number of decisions [Johanne Lépine Desmarchais (A-0907.88), Balbir Kaur (A-0487.93)] that the Minister of National Revenue has the sole jurisdiction to decide the question of insurability of employment. If the claimant wishes to contest the Revenue Canada decision, this must be done before the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51746
Full Text of Decision 51746
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant reduced her working hours in order to ensure carrying her pregnancy to full term. She was insured under a wage loss insurance plan and received weekly indemnity payments under that plan which supplemented her wages. Claimant contends that the payments ought to be considered insured earnings and be taken into account in calculating her weekly rate. Request denied by Commission. BOR allowed claimant's appeal but Umpire held that BOR had no jurisdiction as that jurisdiction by statute is reserved for resolution to Revenue Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Decision 51357
Full Text of Decision 51357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0353.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 51479
Full Text of Decision 51479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0417.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 46460
Full Text of Decision 46460
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
BOR held that in the case of a first offence, the penalty was sufficient and the Commission should have exercised its discretion by simply issuing a warning. Umpire held that the BOR erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Act does not allow a notice of very serious violation given by the Commission to be varied and replaced by a warning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision 45019
Full Text of Decision 45019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant misinformed and BOR allowed $896 for emotional trauma. Misconception of the Regs and of its jurisdiction by the BOR. The Act does not confer upon the Commission, a BOR, an Umpire or even the Appellate Division of the FCA, jurisdiction to award damages or the equivalent thereof.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Decision 41109
Full Text of Decision 41109
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant submited that BOR erred in law in basing its decision on information which could not be used since it was obtained by the Commission without his consent. Umpire ruled that the methods used by the Commission to obtain the information complied with the Act and could be used by the Commission and BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
charter |
|
|
Decision 40275
Full Text of Decision 40275
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
BOR committed an error by applying in their decision EI Act 29 (c)(iv) "any other reasonable circumstances that are prescribed". This means prescribed by regulations or determined in accordance with the rules prescribed by the regulations. It does not confer upon BOR the authority to adopt or prescribed what it considers to be other reasonable circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 38215
Full Text of Decision 38215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The BOR overstepped its authority and made a basic error in law by claiming to be competent to calculate the weeks of employment, a function over which the Department of National Revenue alone has discretionary power. Under subsection 61(3) of the Act, that department is the only authority competent to render decisions in that regard.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0709.95
Full Text of Decision A-0709.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
In exercising its discretionary power, the Commission judicially refused to extent the appeal period. However, the Board of Referees allowed the claimant to appeal in spite of the fact that she did this after the deadline. FCA found that the BOR could not, in this case, substitute its discretion for that of the Commission, unless it seemed that the Commission had not exercised its discretion judicially by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant ones.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 36064
Full Text of Decision 36064
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
It was not the Board of Referees' responsibility to take the place of the employer and decide whether the work requirements were justified. Provided these requirements are reasonable, it is the employer's responsibility to determine the importance to be given them. Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 25402
Full Text of Decision 25402
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board was correct in law in not deciding this secondary issue. However, if the Board considered the decision of the Insurance Officer irrelevant to the real matter in question, it should have referred the case back to the Commission. In not doing so, it failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
The Board may only deal with a "decision" of the Commission as it is. A party may not raise an issue at the hearing which was not part of the decision upon which the appeal was based. The Board cannot go beyond the decision and address issues not properly before it. To do so is an error of law.
Decision 20869
Full Text of Decision 20869
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay and severance pay received upon termination. Case allowed by Board because claimant had received erroneous information from the CEIC. It is clear that the Board erred in law. A claim cannot be established until a claimant experiences an interruption of earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
Decision 18908
Full Text of Decision 18908
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Has only 19 of the 20 weeks required. Percentage paid each week as 3 public holidays. In the view of the Board, this represented a 20th week. An error in law; insurability is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. In any event, this could not be decided on the basis of Reg. 58(12).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
statutory holidays |
|
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
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 |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 17888
Full Text of Decision 17888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Decision 17504
Full Text of Decision 17504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant started to work in real estate in 5-86. Notice sent to her in 6-87 saying disentitled from 5-87. The Board upheld the disentitlement from 5-86. Claimant argues that 5-86 was not an issue. The CEIC alleges typographical error and that correct date is 5-86. Held that the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision 15672
Full Text of Decision 15672
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0907.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0907.88
Full Text of Decision A-0907.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire could not, without having committed an error of law, conclude that claimant had held insurable employment for the week immediately following her dismissal by reason only of her receipt of a vacation pay allocated to that week under s. 58.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 16902
Full Text of Decision 16902
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
1 day of work followed by 19 full insured weeks followed by 1.5 days of work. 20 weeks required. Case allowed by Board as claimant actually put the time in on the first day even though she was short 2 hours in money. Error of law. Further, overtime in other weeks is of no help.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Decision 15492
Full Text of Decision 15492
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
I do not believe it was open to the Board to increase the period of disentitlement by making it commence at an earlier date and if that was what the Board intended to do, it was an error of law.
Decision 15459
Full Text of Decision 15459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board obviously erred in law. In accordance with 75(3) and 105, determination of insurability is made by the Minister of Revenue. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review such a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15036
Full Text of Decision 15036
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board was wrong in holding that reg. 52 was contrary to the Charter. It was wrong to ignore reg. 52 and paras. 58(t) and (u) of the Act on that basis. The Board erred in law in being dissatisfied with the methodology used by Statistics Canada and selection of that agency.
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 |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 11072
Full Text of Decision 11072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Non-insurability ruling reversed by National Revenue and then appealed before Tax Court. The Board held that a benefit period must be established in the meantime. Error of law in that it did not have regard to reg. 50.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
decision under appeal |
|
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 |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
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 |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 66253
Full Text of Decision 66253
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The Record of Employment was obviously invalid, if not false, and this could not be ignored. Ignoring it constitutes an error of law. The 11 bi-weekly report cards to claim benefits for a benefit period established with this false Record of Employment are in the docket. Such evidence could not be ignored without a reason.
Decision 63064
Full Text of Decision 63064
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The claimant's spouse had access to his Teledec code and admitted that she continued to make claims and receive benefits to their joint account after his return to work. The Umpire stated that the Commission carries the burden of proving that the claimant made false or misleading statements under the legislation and that they were made knowingly. It is not necessary to establish fraud. In its conclusions, the Board of Referees addressed the issue of fraud and stated that the claimant did not knowingly defraud the Commission. The judge finds that the Board's decision was laconic and could not be upheld.
Decision A-0344.03
Full Text of Decision A-0344.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The claimant was fired for engaging in activities that violated the restrictions entitling him to workers' compensation benefits. The Court found that the Umpire correctly set aside the decision of the Board of Referees, which refused to address the issue before it and, more specifically, to consider the evidence. That is, did the claimant lose his employment due to misconduct?
Decision 57697
Full Text of Decision 57697
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0344.03
Decision A-0297.97
Full Text of Decision A-0297.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The FCA found that the BOR had asked itself the wrong question, that is, whether the claimant voluntarily left his employment rather than whether there was misconduct established. Pointing at some of the inconsistent and inaccurate findings of the BOR, the FCA ordered that the case be sent back to a new BOR for rehearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision A-0312.96
Full Text of Decision A-0312.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
FCA accepted the finding of the Umpire that the Board of Referees erred in law in confusing the notion of insurability with that of being unemployed, but it did not believe that the Umpire could base his decision on the BOR’s statement, which was deemed unacceptable. The case was sent to another Umpire for a new decision.
Decision A-0436.95
Full Text of Decision A-0436.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The BOR found that claimant had made a serious error of judgement when transferring school funds to his personal account but that he did not "further intend" to harm employer's interests. Held that the BOR must not question the employer's decision to terminate the claimant. Upheld by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 16648A
Full Text of Decision 16648A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in simply endorsing the decision on the basis that "the Commission has acted responsibly". This is of no direct relevance. It is the correctness of that decision which the Board is obliged to determine.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 16305
Full Text of Decision 16305
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
According to the Board, the insured had a study/work experience and was prepared to quit his courses, but his job searches had not been sufficiently numerous. Error in law. Confused 2 different notions: availability and inability to obtain employment. Delay to be granted.
Decision 15737
Full Text of Decision 15737
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by decreeing that the insured had demonstrated availability where it had to decide whether he was unemployed in relation to the activities linked to the business he operated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
Decision 15073
Full Text of Decision 15073
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The Board ruled that the insured person was available. An error in law. Before being eligible, an individual must be unemployed. There is a clear distinction between eligibility and availability as stated in CUB-14399.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
government programs |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
Decision 14752
Full Text of Decision 14752
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
Having decided that the insured was not unemployed because he was operating a business whereas this business was not yet established, rather than referring to non-availability, CEIC erred in law, an error which was endorsed by the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
preparatory activities in commencing business |
|
|
Decision 13145
Full Text of Decision 13145
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
Real estate agent working 50 hours per week in evenings and on weekends; board examined availability and allowed case; error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 11093
Full Text of Decision 11093
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Summary:
The Board seems to have given equal importance to claimant's very limited job search. This was not in issue. The grounds stated by the Commission was that claimant was not unemployed under s.10. Availability comes under s.14. Error in law.
Decision 40243
Full Text of Decision 40243
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
BOR in its decision to find falsity used the words "knowingly or should have known". Umpire found those words neutralized the word "knowingly" and ruled that BOR erred in adopting them as they do not meet the test according to the legislative provisions to determine falsity.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
Decision 37118A
Full Text of Decision 37118A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for having failed to indicate instances of lateness in his daily report. BOR claimed that these actions constituted dishonesty or fraud. Umpire ruled that the BOR had committed an error of law in finding that acts of which the claimant was accused constituted misconduct according to the meaning given to that term in s. 28(1) of the Act, since the claimant’s supervisor was the first person to be informed of his lateness. Consequently, the claimant never intended to rob his employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision A-1691.92
Full Text of Decision A-1691.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The meaning to be given to the words "without just cause" being a question of law, we feel it irreconcilable with the very purpose of the Act to conclude that the claimant was justified in acting as she did (voluntarily leaving to attend a course). Reference to TANGUAYin re error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study approved |
|
Decision 22097
Full Text of Decision 22097
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1691.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study approved |
|
Decision 23676
Full Text of Decision 23676
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Both counsels acknowledged the fact that the Board failed to delineate what facts constituted misconduct pursuant to the jurisprudence cited (CUBs 21645, 16547 and 22649). By failing so to do, a reversible error in law was committed.
Decision A-0599.92
Full Text of Decision A-0599.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Whether a sum paid is a "pension" is a question of law. O'CONNOR quoted. Another characteristic of a pension relates to the level of control the recipient exercises over the pension fund. The true nature of the monies should be determined. Upheld by the FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
| earnings |
income |
non-competitive clause |
|
Decision 20965
Full Text of Decision 20965
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0599.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
| earnings |
income |
non-competitive clause |
|
Decision 22477
Full Text of Decision 22477
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
In CUB 18653, I held it was an error in law for a Board to refer to "just cause" in considering a disqualification under s. 27. The test for "good cause" has been well established by the case law as being what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in similar circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
transportation difficulties |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 21506
Full Text of Decision 21506
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. If the beneficiary, through ignorance, made false statements as it says in its decision, it's because she did not "knowingly" make false statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 20371
Full Text of Decision 20371
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
CUB 13920 quoted. I fully concur that the determination of what constitutes "just cause" is a question of fact which falls particularly within the jurisdictional province of Boards of Referees. An Umpire appeal is not a hearing de novo.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 19519
Full Text of Decision 19519
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
No longer able to accept evening shift after childbirth. Employment held not suitable by Board. Error of law. Under s.27 suitability depends on the work conditions themselves and not on one's personal circumstances. Personal affairs to be arranged to achieve that availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Decision 18653
Full Text of Decision 18653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Parliament did not intend that "good cause" and "just cause" be treated as synonymous. I find that the Board erred in law in its reference to "just cause" when it considered the reasons for the claimant's failure to attend the course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
failure to attend |
leaving the course |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
good cause |
definition |
|
Decision 17682
Full Text of Decision 17682
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in relying on Black's Law Dictionary to preclude an honorarium received by the claimant for his elected position as a Band Councillor from being considered as earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
elected or appointed representative |
|
Decision 14807
Full Text of Decision 14807
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Board found that claimant did not intend his answer to be misleading or to misrepresent his situation. Nevertheless, the Board did not eliminate the penalty but simply reduced it. This was an error of law.
Decision 14738
Full Text of Decision 14738
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Voluntary termination justified in part according to the board and disqualification reduced from 6 to 2 weeks. Error in law. Can one be justified in part according to 28? In my opinion, no. It is not appropriate to question whether the justification can be partial or complete.
Decision 14576
Full Text of Decision 14576
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Whether one is available and seeking employment is a question of mixed law and fact. The construction of the word "available" is a matter of law; its application to the particular circumstances is a matter of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
how to search |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
number of contacts |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 13838
Full Text of Decision 13838
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Act does not define just cause. The definition is a question of law. Just cause is not synonymous with reason or motive. Not sufficient for one to prove he acted reasonably. Reasonableness may be good cause but not necessarily just cause.
Decision 13728
Full Text of Decision 13728
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Board found that the claimant had just cause for refusing the position and reduced the suspension to 3 weeks. The Board erred in law. Having found that the claimant had just cause, it has no jurisdiction to impose any disqualification period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
Decision 13629
Full Text of Decision 13629
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The definition of "just cause" is purely a question of law. Its application as to whether an employee was justified in leaving is one of fact. Just cause is not synonymous with reason or motive.
Decision A-0381.85
Full Text of Decision A-0381.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Since claimant's admission of impairment was admission of a fact only, and not of the requisite mental state, the Board considered proof of a mental element unnecessary, so that ss. 28(1) relating to misconduct does not require wilfulness or recklessness. Error of law.
It is argued that the meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law. This question was put to rest in BEDELL where the Court said that the construction of the word 'misconduct' is a question of law.
When a word appears in a statutory context, it is for a Court to interpret that word as a matter of law. The construction of a statutory word is a matter of law; its application to particular facts is a matter of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Decision A-1496.84
Full Text of Decision A-1496.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Commission erred in law as it ignored the definition of income in Reg. 57 and the particular requirement of 57(6)(d) in concluding that the value of accommodation and horse board was not insurable earnings. [p. 10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
responsibility for ui administration |
|
|
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
non-monetary |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision A-1458.84
Full Text of Decision A-1458.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
While question of whether an employee had just cause is one of fact, the question of the definition of just cause is purely a question of law. Error of law if decision cannot be reconciled with definition. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
altruistic considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
monetary considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
rationale |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
a requirement |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 11179
Full Text of Decision 11179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Board found that "misstatements were made innocently" and, therefore, erred in law in holding that any penalty should be imposed since such a finding precludes a finding that claimant knowingly made a false statement.
Decision 10615
Full Text of Decision 10615
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Board concluded that insured had just cause for leaving, and accordingly reduced disqualification from 6 weeks to 3. Mitigating circumstances may be considered only where insured left without just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Decision A-1865.83
Full Text of Decision A-1865.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The meaning of "full working week" in 21(1) is a question of law; whether particular weeks are full working weeks may turn on questions of fact. [p. 17]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
employed |
|
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Decision A-1716.83
Full Text of Decision A-1716.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Not necessary to attempt definition, perhaps undesirable to do so. Whether one's conduct is misconduct will depend largely on the circumstances of each case. The construction of a word is a question of law. Whether a particular act is misconduct is a question of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Decision A-1607.83
Full Text of Decision A-1607.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The decision of the Board was based in part upon a misinterpretation of the settlement agreement in which payment is described as damages. This would constitute an error in law and permit an Umpire to vary the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A-0440.83
Full Text of Decision A-0440.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
According to board, claimant was dismissed as result of simple disagreement with employer with no ill will on either part. It therefore erred in law in finding misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misunderstandings |
|
|
Decision A-0613.81
Full Text of Decision A-0613.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in saying that babysitting difficulties amounted to good cause, given the conclusion that claimant could not restrict her availability to the extent she had. If not available due to these difficulties, these cannot amount to goodcause. [p._15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision A0385.10
Full Text of Decision A0385.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The claimant was employed until October 16, 2008, at which time she voluntarily left her employment stating that she left to prepare for a trip. Based on her testimony at the hearing, the BOR found that the claimant left her employment due to a shortage of work and that she was available during the period at issue. The Umpire confirmed the BOR's decision. The FCA held that the BOR erred in law by relying solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing, thereby ignoring without explanation the initial and spontaneous statements made by the claimant demonstrating that she left her employment voluntarily without just cause. The BOR further erred in law by concluding that the claimant had established her availability on the basis of her job search efforts following the period at issue.
Decision 71255
Full Text of Decision 71255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The claimant indicated that she was attending a full-time education program in Childhood Education. The courses were given from 8:20 am to 4:30 pm, from Monday to Friday. She also expected to have to devote another 10 to 15 hours per week on her course. Her intention was to devote her time to her course rather than look for work. She added that she was a student trying to get through her course and not having to worry about working part time to pay her bills and she could not live solely on her student loan. She stated that she was not available to work because of her studies. Subsequently, she indicated that she was available to work on a part-time basis but on weekends only, as school had to come first. It is well established in the jurisprudence that a person whose availability for employment is limited to part-time work outside his or her course schedule has not established availability for employment pursuant to subsection 18(a) of the Act. The Commission’s appeal is allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
Availability Criteria |
|
Decision A-0156.99
Full Text of Decision A-0156.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized BOR for not accepting his version of the facts. Umpire refused to intervene, ruling that banking of hours had taken place and that the scheme is designed to defraud EI. Claimant alleged before FCA that BOR and Umpire had refused to consider certain evidence. Court summarily denied the claimant's request for a judicial review, ruling that the evidence presented by the claimant was not sufficient to challenge the findings of the Umpire or BOR.
Decision 43617
Full Text of Decision 43617
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0156.99
Decision 42165
Full Text of Decision 42165
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Although the claimant showed that he had a history of working and going to school, he was not granted any reasonable period of time, and he was refused benefits. According to the Umpire, BOR erred in law in not taking this situation into account by granting a reasonable period of three months, given his undisputed history of working and going to school and the claimant's availability to work part-time while attending school 15 to 18 hours a week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
after reasonable period of time |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work simultaneously |
|
Decision A-0086.98
Full Text of Decision A-0086.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 25 false statements. Umpire found that the BOR had misinterpreted the facts in reversing the Commission's decision. The claimant's allegation of "several years of drug abuse" to justify his situation was neither reasonable nor credible. He had been sufficiently lucid to report to work for 49 consecutive weeks as well as to sign and submit his statements under the guise of being unemployed, for the obvious purpose of collecting benefits to which he was not entitled. FCA upheld the Umpire's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 41469
Full Text of Decision 41469
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision A-0141.97
Full Text of Decision A-0141.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Quit her job after refusing two alternatives as neither allowed her to work full time during the day. Umpire found that just cause was implicitly considered by the BOR when it found that the employer had in good faith made reasonable offers of job to the claimant. FCA disagreed with the Umpire's conclusion finding that the BOR did not fully consider whether the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment. By focusing almost exclusively on the issue of whether the employer's re-organization of its business was done in good faith, the BOR failed to have proper regard for the statutory test for just cause as it found in subsection 28(4) of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 39928
Full Text of Decision 39928
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant is paid for 10 weeks and during the rest of the year she provides her services on a voluntary basis while receiving benefits. According to the Umpire, the BOR erred in describing this as volunteer work. BOR did not consider that she derived a benefit, namely the hope of being paid for 10 weeks each year. Therefore, her motives for doing the work are not entirely disinterested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
Decision 38774
Full Text of Decision 38774
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for failing on 3 occasions to report for work. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law because it didn't examine the evidence to determine the reason in each instance for the claimant's failure to report for work and to further determine whether having regard thereto, the mental element of willfulness was present on each occasion. BOR simply applied the definition of misconduct from Tucker to conclude that absence from work on 3 occasions constituted misconduct without further analysis. Absence from work may be cause for dismissal but cause for dismissal does not equate with misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision A-0904.96
Full Text of Decision A-0904.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Wife paid for work performed by the claimant. No earnings declared. Claimant admitted before the BOR that he knew the way he was completing his cards was incorrect and illegal. Nevertheless, the BOR found that the claimant had not knowingly made 14 false statements. Umpire overturned the BOR's decision, stating that it was made with total disregard for the facts. FCA ruled that the Umpire was justified in substituting her assessment of the evidence for that of the BOR, since the Board had dismissed a statement by the claimant without explanation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Decision A-0611.96
Full Text of Decision A-0611.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The employer ordered the closure of the jobsite where the claimant worked because of a dispute with the union. This action by the employer was part of a labour dispute which, for several months, had pitted employers and employees in the construction industry against one another on the subject of the terms and conditions of their future agreement. FCA maintained that the existence of a causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work is a question of law. Therefore, it applied the decision in J.D. Laval et al (A-0825.95), which found in similar circumstances that there was a clear causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work. Court held that both the BOR and the Umpire erred in law when they found that such a connection did not exist.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Decision 35498
Full Text of Decision 35498
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error in law by asking whether the misconduct of which the claimant was accused justified dismissal when it concluded that the final disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the act of which he was accused. Should rather have determined whether dismissal was due to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision A-0216.93
Full Text of Decision A-0216.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Since the appreciation of "good cause" necessarily requires an examination of all the circumstances it would have been an error for the Board not to consider claimant's illness. There is no sacramental formula which requires the trier to use a specific form of words in coming to a conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
| antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Decision 21236
Full Text of Decision 21236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1036.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision A-1036.92
Full Text of Decision A-1036.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The second issue was said to be a factual one: the Umpire found "as a fact" that the loss of employment resulted from the stoppage of work. This is not a factual matter at all; it is a conclusion of law based on certain facts found by the Umpire. There is really no dispute with regard to the facts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 20418
Full Text of Decision 20418
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant accompanied her husband to Toronto for a lung transplant operation. The employer approved her request for leave of absence. It was a prerequisite of the program that she must care for husband at all times. The Board erred in law in equating this situation to quarantine.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
quarantine |
definition |
|
| availability for work |
absences from home |
sickness or death |
|
Decision A-0258.90
Full Text of Decision A-0258.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant's 1987 vacation pay not paid to her on a timely basis because of employer's financial difficulties. Paid to her in 11-88. The Board and the Umpire erred in law in characterizing as a loan the unpaid amount. It does not possess the attributes of a loan. No such evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 16645
Full Text of Decision 16645
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
On a training period in a convenience store where he earned $25 for working 40 hours a week. The program came under the provincial government. The Board erred in law by finding that it was a job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
government programs |
|
|
Decision S-0512.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
As per the FC, the Board erred in law in stating that the tentative agreement brought to an end the labour dispute. Such agreement, by definition, has no effect until it is made definitive. It was never ratified and never took effect. Leave to appeal to SC dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0220.87
Full Text of Decision A-0220.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
A determination of the date at which earnings were interrupted depends, under ss. 37(3), on the length of the leave to which he was entitled. A determination as to his rights under the labour agreement was not a question of fact but one of law. The Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
Decision 15384
Full Text of Decision 15384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Foreman of subcontractor threatened claimant. Upon being informed, employer offered claimant a job to another site with less hours. Error in law not to consider constructive dismissal as indicated by banishment with less hours although he appeared not to have been in the wrong.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Decision A-0732.86
Full Text of Decision A-0732.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision is simply contradictory to the findings of fact. Therefore, it made either an error of law or an error of fact. It simply did not make findings of fact which supported the conclusions which it reached, according to the Umpire. Upheld by the FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
job search |
|
|
Decision 12865
Full Text of Decision 12865
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0732.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
job search |
|
|
Decision 13443
Full Text of Decision 13443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0220.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Decision A-0186.86
Full Text of Decision A-0186.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
3 months salary paid following permanent shutdown. Contract in force according to Board. The Umpire held a contrary view. Error in law. The parties to a contract of employment can legally agree to extend the contract for a period in which one will not be required to do any work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 11836
Full Text of Decision 11836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0186.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 12380
Full Text of Decision 12380
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Board erred in law in concluding that a person who receives $30 per week for petty cash in addition to accommodation at hotel at employer's expense is working as volunteer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
| penalties |
earnings |
|
|
Decision A-1198.84
Full Text of Decision A-1198.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The facts here never created any difficulties. The issue is whether those facts are consistent with the facts contemplated by the legal rule in issue, and characterization of those facts depends on the interpretation; this raises a question of law. [Marceau J.A.]
Decision 10922
Full Text of Decision 10922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Insured argued that it is a question of credibility and therefore a question of law; tried to find errors of law committed by board. Seems plain to me that credibility is a question of fact and that it always has been thus regarded in case law.
Decision A-0832.82
Full Text of Decision A-0832.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant received $190 for 25 and 26-12 (advance pay against future credits but not stated in the judgment). That sum constituted "pay received in respect of a holiday" that had to be allocated under reg. 58(12). In treating the sum as a mere loan, the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision A-0117.81
Full Text of Decision A-0117.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in deciding that the 8% paid in lieu of vacation was severance pay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Decision A-0770.80
Full Text of Decision A-0770.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant gave Boiestown as her address. Benefit period established with 10 insured weeks. She actually resided in Taxis River where 16 weeks were required. The Umpire erred in law. No dispute that claimant lives in Taxis River, so reg.61(2) dealing withboundary residents is not applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
boundaries |
|
Decision A-0568.79
Full Text of Decision A-0568.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Nothing in the evidence to show that there were special funding arrangements permitting employees not to contribute to a strike initiated against their interests. Error of law since the Umpire's decision was based on this finding, without regard to the evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision A-0354.79
Full Text of Decision A-0354.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the dispute was the occasion and not the cause of the stoppage: the employer had taken advantage of bargaining to try to reduce break times. We are of the opinion that the judged erred in law: the stoppage was attributable to the dispute.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Decision A-0445.76
Full Text of Decision A-0445.76
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Conflict between the FTQ and employer associations concerning amendments to be made to the construction decree. Umpire erred in law in finding that the conflict was not between employer and employees, but between the government and the FTQ.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
Decision 44831
Full Text of Decision 44831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Claimant was receiving $394.00 from the CSST while his weekly benefit rate was $402.00. He was therefore entitled to $8.00 a week. He had not claimed benefits while receiving the CSST compensation and therefore requested an extension of his benefit period. Request denied. Decision upheld by the Umpire under paragraph 10(10)(c) of the EI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Decision 41469
Full Text of Decision 41469
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 41366
Full Text of Decision 41366
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that it was not fair to convert his hours worked, 44 hours per week, and take into account only 35 hours per week under the Regulations, giving him only 735 hours of insurable employment when 910 hours were required. BOR reversed the Commission’s decision and allowed 44 hours per week. Umpire stated that it was the government that had chosen the rule of 35 hours, it being the average number of hours currently worked in Canada. He found that section 94.1 of the Regulations had been applied correctly and that BOR had erred in law in forgetting the relevant rules in the Act and Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Decision 41322
Full Text of Decision 41322
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The initial benefit rate was wrongly calculated by the Commission. As a result of new information the rate was corrected. Umpire concluded that, while one can understand the annoyance of claimant, unfortunately it is the law which must be applied and in faling to do this, the BOR made in error in law. The error was detected and corrected by the Commission well within the time limit allowed by the legislation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 40275
Full Text of Decision 40275
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
BOR committed an error by applying in their decision EI Act 29 (c)(iv) "any other reasonable circumstances that are prescribed". This means prescribed by regulations or determined in accordance with the rules prescribed by the regulations. It does not confer upon BOR the authority to adopt or prescribed what it considers to be other reasonable circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 39569
Full Text of Decision 39569
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Commission refused to extend the benefit period because the claimant could have demanded the difference between the benefit rate ($245/wk) and the preventative withdrawal settlement rate ($222/wk). The Board of Referees set aside this decision. Umpire found that subsection 9(7) does not apply to this case. The claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, since the amount of his settlement was less than his unemployment insurance benefits. The Board thus erred in its interpretation of this provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
payments under provincial law |
Decision 42015
Full Text of Decision 42015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in law in deciding that a benefit period started on a Wednesday since this is contrary to the EI Act which states that a benefit period starts on a Sunday.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
commencement date |
|
Decision 38323
Full Text of Decision 38323
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Board applied the test of whether or not the children actually had been adopted by the claimant. However, that is not the test according to the wording of the provision. The correct test is whether or not the children had been placed for the purpose of adoption, rather than whether they had been adopted or not. Board erred in law by applying the incorrect test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
for the purpose of adoption |
|
|
| parental benefits |
actually placed |
|
|
| parental benefits |
charter |
|
|
Decision 37553
Full Text of Decision 37553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Having quit his job three weeks before expiration of his contract, the claimant was disqualified. While recognizing that claimant had voluntarily quit his job without just cause, the Umpire found that par. 28.3(1) (a) [ now 33(1) (a) ] which calls for a disentitlemnt rather than disqualification was applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Decision A-1028.91
Full Text of Decision A-1028.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
We are all of the opinion that the Umpire was correct to decide that the Board had erred in law by interpreting a clear clause in the collective agreement governing the claimants in a manner which contradicted its text.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
contract and labour agreement |
|
Decision 20198
Full Text of Decision 20198
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1028.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
contract and labour agreement |
|
Decision 21968
Full Text of Decision 21968
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board ignored the requirement of the Regulations to apply the test (ordinarily resident) to the claimant's circumstances in the week preceding the week for which he applied for benefits. I must therefore set aside the decision of the Board because of this error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
moving |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
vs. work area |
|
| basic concepts |
ordinarily resident defined |
applicability |
|
Decision 21817
Full Text of Decision 21817
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by failing to apply the statutory test prescribed by 28(4)(d), namely whether claimant had no reasonable alternative to immediately leaving, having regard to all the circumstances, including working conditions constituting a danger to health or safety.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 21470
Full Text of Decision 21470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
In my view the Board erred in law. There is no question that the legislation requires that the rate of benefit will be 50% of claimant's average weekly insurable earnings if claimant has been disqualified for having refused employment. This is clearly spelled out in CUB 20795.
Decision 20498
Full Text of Decision 20498
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
It is not open to the Commission to treat the work of the claimant prior to 31-10-90 as that of a farm employee, in receipt of insurable employment income from her husband, and then seek to treat her as a self-employed person for terminating her UI. This is an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Decision 19780
Full Text of Decision 19780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The reasoning of the Board implies that evidence of the requirement in ss.10(4) that a lay period be a result of having worked a greater number of hours than are normally worked in a week, must be found in the contract. Error of law. The actual practiceis relevant. [p._8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
sharing employment |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 15281B
Full Text of Decision 15281B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board referred to both reg. 43 and 44, and said that claimant was working a full working week. Reg. 43 and 44 are mutually exclusive, and the Board must rely upon one or the other but not both. The Commission has acknowledged this error and agreed that the Board erred in law.
Decision 18216
Full Text of Decision 18216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Called back to work on 18-1; lock-out on 20-1. The Board considered that the employer did not act in good faith. No evidence in this regard. An error in law to say that the employer must show good faith within the meaning of Reg. 49.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Decision 16029
Full Text of Decision 16029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0106.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Decision A-0106.89
Full Text of Decision A-0106.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in concluding that leave pay and leave day (time off) were interchangeable and allocating leave pay on the basis that "the amount of earnings is that amount of accumulated leave pay from the first day of the month when he was laid off".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Decision 16978
Full Text of Decision 16978
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0430.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision A-0430.89
Full Text of Decision A-0430.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Benefit period established in 2-86 and terminated 9-86. The Umpire used ss. 7(2) enacted 4-87 to allow an extension of the qualifying period prior to 2-86. The Umpire erred in law in finding that 7(2) had retrospective effect.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 17228
Full Text of Decision 17228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in ruling that the oath violated the claimant's Charter rights in the absence of specific sections of the Charter and applicable jurisprudence being before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
oath of employment |
|
|
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 14845
Full Text of Decision 14845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Spends 6 weeks convalescing in Switzerland. According to the board, he clearly should have obtained the approval of CEIC before leaving the country. Error in law, but this is of no help to the claimant because of Reg. 54(3).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 13226
Full Text of Decision 13226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Erroneous interpretation of an Act based on uncontested findings of fact constitutes error of law. Cited Pratte J.A. in ALBRECHT.
Decision A-0167.85
Full Text of Decision A-0167.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in holding that it is not necessary to classify vacation pay as earnings to authorize allocation thereof. Vacation pay, to be subject to allocation under reg. 58, must be earnings as defined by reg. 57.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 10737
Full Text of Decision 10737
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Car accident 31-7-83 which did not leave claimant completely incapacitated but rendered her unable to work. Claim filed 3-10-83. The Board held that "the Act clearly states that only total incapacity is acceptable as good cause" for antedating purposes.Error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
| antedate |
expecting compensation payments |
|
|
Decision 08839
Full Text of Decision 08839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Disentitled retroactively. She had disclosed her pregnancy but was paid by error. Decision overruled by the Board on the ground that no new facts were revealed for the Commission to open investigation of her file [p. 5]. New facts not required under s.43. Error of law. [p. 12-14]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision A-0434.82
Full Text of Decision A-0434.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The fact that the collective agreement had expired was irrelevant to whether the strike was illegal, being in violation of the Ontario legislation. The Board, having based its conclusion that the loss of work was not due to misconduct on an irrelevant consideration, erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Decision A-0433.82
Full Text of Decision A-0433.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The fact that the collective agreement had expired was irrelevant to whether the strike was illegal, being in violation of the Ontario legislation. The Board, having based its conclusion that the loss of work was not due to misconduct on an irrelevant consideration, erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Decision 40727
Full Text of Decision 40727
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Umpire did not find that misconduct could be construed on the claimant's performance. Dissatisfaction with one's work does not mean that the person is guilty of misconduct. BOR has misconstrued the jusriprudence concerning misconduct and therefore has made an error in law in this case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
incompetence |
|
|
Decision 36873A
Full Text of Decision 36873A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Umpires are bound by the rulings of the Federal Court of Appeal and must apply the law as it exists at the time when the appeal is before them. An Umpire is not free to disregard a decision of a higher authority simply because it was rendered following the BOR's decision.
Decision 25103
Full Text of Decision 25103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
I have no hesitation in saying that the Board made an error in law in not considering the criteria in CUB 5454 as to whether or not the employment was minor in extent. Had they done so, they would have reached the conclusion, indubitably, that the employment was not minor in extent.
Decision 24461
Full Text of Decision 24461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Claimant appealed this decision on the basis that she incurred personal expenses of $22,751.24 in order to buy back premiums to receive her pension. CUB 15683 quoted. Clearly, the decision of the Board goes against the jurisprudence and consequently the said Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
own contributions |
|
Decision 23426
Full Text of Decision 23426
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
In my view, the failure of the Board to consider the Commission's responsibility to warn the claimant if it considered her job search too narrow before deciding she was disentitled to benefits constitutes an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 17055A
Full Text of Decision 17055A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1085.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision A-1085.92
Full Text of Decision A-1085.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Ss. 43(2) has been interpreted by the Schwenk case (CUB 5454) to require that a Board of Referees must take into account six factors. The Umpire held that the Board had not appreciated the full context of the law which it was being asked to apply and correctly identified an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 22495
Full Text of Decision 22495
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in allowing the case by blatantly ignoring the fundamental rule regarding non-availability of full-time students in university, and by placing undue and mistaken emphasis on an ancient history of part-time employment in a capacity other than that of student.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work long ago |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision 21808
Full Text of Decision 21808
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law by ignoring the provisions of para. 14(a) and the developed body of case law pertaining to claimants taking courses, and applying instead its own test criterion of "special circumstances" for which there is no statutory mandate whatever.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 21529
Full Text of Decision 21529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
I agree that the Board made errors of law and fact. It gave great emphasis to the small amount of money it considered the claimant made from his land. In doing so it was distorting the accepted legal criteria for self-employment, the revenue being only one element to consider.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Decision 21456
Full Text of Decision 21456
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board decided that ignorance of the law together with the good faith of the beneficiary were the sufficient justification required by para. 9(4). That is quite contrary to the principles in CARON T. The Board thus erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Decision 19938
Full Text of Decision 19938
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Courses begin 5-9-88. Board clearly erred in law. Could not base itself on simple period of work during holidays, from 7-12-88 to 23-1-89 to come to conclusion beneficiary had established history of employment as set out in jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision A-1049.88
Full Text of Decision A-1049.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. Availability to be determined objectively: see BERTRAND. The fact that claimant thought in good faith that she could not work did not render her available [for a period in respect of which her doctor said she was capable].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 15799
Full Text of Decision 15799
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1049.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
Decision 16824
Full Text of Decision 16824
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
CUB 8330 quoted by Board that "just cause is made out only where there is an element of urgency, necessity or compulsion". That is not consistent with more recent jurisprudence in TANGUAY. Basically the standard conduct to be met is that of the "reasonable man". Error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 16675
Full Text of Decision 16675
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Found a job working 5 hours a week while he received benefits and stopped because of a strike. The Board erred in law: it does not matter that the job is not insurable. In accordance with SCHOEN, no distinction should be made between this type of employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 15389
Full Text of Decision 15389
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Left his job for which he was paid $300 a week and then asked for $500. I agree with that principle (that the insured person must be warned when his or her demands are too high in accordance with CUB-12842 and 14708). No time period was given. An error in law. Entitled to 8 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
wages or salary |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 14823
Full Text of Decision 14823
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Claimant had long been employed on a temporary contract basis. Last contract completed 30-6. Available as teacher or office worker. Chances of employment practically nil. Error of law. Well-settled law that some time must be allowed. Claimant re-employed 2-9.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 14550
Full Text of Decision 14550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Many decisions have held that UI benefits are not intended as a subsidy to enable a claimant to pursue studies. To allow claimant to receive benefits while pursuing a difficult and demanding course would be contrary to jurisprudence and an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 13115
Full Text of Decision 13115
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Error of law not to following principles stated in case law; context: restriction on availability and reasonable period to be allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
geographical area |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
Decision A-0765.85
Full Text of Decision A-0765.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
As per ABRAHAMS, the regularity of the work schedule must be considered. Worked on call from 10-11-82 to 25-7-83. The 678 hours and earnings of $3,154 here are unequally spread over many months. Error of law by Board: designated as regular what was irregular employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 11140
Full Text of Decision 11140
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0765.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 10631
Full Text of Decision 10631
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Board decided that end of stoppage had occurred on 14-9 because all work was completed on that date and all employees laid off as they were every year. Plainly erred in law. See IMBEAULT.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Decision A-0706.84
Full Text of Decision A-0706.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in interpreting CUB 5463. That CUB states that being on an unpaid leave is not conclusive of non-availability. It is not authority for the proposition that one is necessarily available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
deferred salary leave |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Decision 51676
Full Text of Decision 51676
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Decided that the claimant's testimony was in flagrant contradiction with the facts in the file and that the members of the BOR did not explain why they accepted the testimony. Since this question was not answered, the matter is sent to a new BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0321.97
Full Text of Decision A-0321.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Umpire dismissed argument that the BOR did not comply with the requirements to provide a statement of findings. FCA held that while the Act did not require a detailed statement of findings of facts, a BOR must, when there is an issue of credibility, state at least briefly, as part of its findings, that it rejects certain evidence on the basis of credibility and why. When a BOR fails to do so it errs in law. Case returned to a new BOR.
Decision A-0195.97
Full Text of Decision A-0195.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0297.97
Full Text of Decision A-0297.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Pointing at some of the inconsistent and inaccurate findings of the BOR, the FCA ordered that the case be sent back to a new BOR for rehearing. The FCA reiterated the necessity for the BOR to address the issues actually presented to them carefully and to explain their findings in coherent and consistent reasoning. Anything less is unacceptable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Decision 38413
Full Text of Decision 38413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The BOR determined that the claimant had been negligent, but it seems to have immediately equated negligence with misconduct, without indicating its reasons for doing so, as required by subsection 79(2) of the Act. This omission on the part of the BOR constitutes an error justifying the quashing of its decision.
Decision 38185
Full Text of Decision 38185
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Board of Referees said almost nothing with regard to its perception of the claimant's credibility and its assessment of the evidence in terms of availability. The lack of a statement of the findings of the Board of Referees on questions of fact material to the decision therefore constitutes an error in law under sections 79 and 80 of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0355.96
Full Text of Decision A-0355.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR's decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
documentary evidence |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 22273
Full Text of Decision 22273
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The Board merely noted that the CEIC based its decision on similar CUB cases. It did not address and make a finding on the inconsistent statements made by the parties on the reason underlying the dismissal. It should have analyzed the evidence before itand come to a conclusion. Error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
Decision 22188
Full Text of Decision 22188
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The Board failed to make any findings of fact material to its decision in the present case, but rather simply chose to parrot the determination of the insurance officer and state its opinion affirming the same. In my opinion, this omission constituted an error in law.
Decision 22082
Full Text of Decision 22082
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
It is well established that a Board commits an error in law when it simply echoes the determination of the Commission or states a bare opinion upholding the same without making any findings of fact material to its decision. I find that to be the case here.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 18709A
Full Text of Decision 18709A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The CEIC contends that the Board's decision fails to comply with the requirements of ss. 79(2) inasmuch as it contained no findings of fact, especially with regard to the 6 conditions prescribed by para. 57(4)(a) to (f). Unfortunately, I am bound to agree. This was an error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
group plan |
|
Decision 17329
Full Text of Decision 17329
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The decision of the Board manifestly fails to comply with ss.79(2). The Board merely found the penalties imposed were in order, but listed no facts on which it relied in reaching this decision. Failure to comply with 79(2) constitutes an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 16648A
Full Text of Decision 16648A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
While accepting that the Commission was correct in its calculation, the Board states no evidence upon which it has reached that conclusion. Such failure is an error of law and gives rise to an inference that the Board did not have regard to material before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 15338
Full Text of Decision 15338
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision provides only limited information as to findings of fact, so I am unable to determine whether claimant's job search and Union-Commission agreement regarding job search were considered. Inadequacy of record of decision amounts to error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 14398
Full Text of Decision 14398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in not complying with ss.79(2). The finding, "decision based according to facts in appeal docket", is patently absurd because those "facts" do not necessarily point to any decision, some being mutually contradictory.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 14274
Full Text of Decision 14274
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The Board stated "After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds no reason to change decision" and erred in law. Issue: misconduct and voluntary leaving. Blatant neglect of Board's duty to state findings of fact. Referred back to Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0344.05
Full Text of Decision A-0344.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the appellant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
Decision A-0417.03
Full Text of Decision A-0417.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The claimant was disqualified for misconduct. The Court found that the BOR made its decision without proper regard for the material before it. It failed to reconcile the contradiction in the testimonies of the employer, one stating the claimant had been terminated, the other testifying voluntary leaving.
Decision 55565
Full Text of Decision 55565
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0417.03
Decision A-0111.98
Full Text of Decision A-0111.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
FCA summarily dismissed the appeal in the following terms: "Considering the brevity of the reasons given by the BOR for its decision and its failure to consider an important admission made by the claimant in a sworn statement, the Umpire had the power and the duty to intervene."
Decision 47005
Full Text of Decision 47005
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not take into account all the evidence before it and rendered a decision based mainly on the claimant's testimony at the hearing. Error in law, according to the Umpire. FCA decision in Boucher (A-0270.96) cited.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Decision 41355
Full Text of Decision 41355
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Claimant was caught asleep on the job by a supervisor, who submitted that this is wilful misconduct. BOR found that each witness was credible and decided that the claimant should have the advantage. Umpire found that based on the evidence, claimant had a history of insubordination, particularly sleeping on the job. He concluded that BOR has made in error of law and of fact and that there was misconduct on the claimant's part.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 40075
Full Text of Decision 40075
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for making 20 false or misleading statements. BOR reversed this decision. According to the evidence, the claimant knew he had to declare his income from his business, but did not do so because he and his family needed money. Umpire found that the UI Program was not designed finance individuals in financial difficulties. BOR thus erred in refusing to accept the documentary evidence on the record, and thereby rendered a decision made in perverse or capricious manner without regard for the material before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Decision A-0235.97
Full Text of Decision A-0235.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that BOR had erred in assessing the whole matter, and consequently had erred in law, in finding that the claimant could not rely upon his business as a principal means of livelihood. Umpire thus ruled that the documentary evidence accumulated in the record was convincing, and that the claimant was not unemployed. FCA set aside the Umpire’s decision and referred the matter back to the Umpire to be disposed of, taking it for granted that the errors that the BOR might have committed in assessing the evidence did not justify the Umpire’s intervention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
Decision 39647
Full Text of Decision 39647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The evidence shows that the claimant had been advised that he could have income equivalent to 25% of the benefits he received without such income having any impact on his right to receive those benefits, and that he was justified in believing that his income would not exceed that limit. Umpire found that the claimant was justified in declaring that he was not working at the time he filled out his cards, and that he had not “knowingly” made false or misleading statements. Umpire held that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in not regarding the claimant’s explanations as reasonable and in not making any reference to those explanations in its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 39277
Full Text of Decision 39277
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in finding that the claimant was unemployed and available. The Board completely ignored the documentary evidence, which showed that the claimant worked 30 to 40 hours per week to set up a business in which he held 25% of the shares, that he had invested time and money in the business, and that he had not looked for work because he was putting all his efforts into working for himself.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
rationale |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0557.96
Full Text of Decision A-0557.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Contradictory evidence in the record. Initial statutory declarations considered most credible. Abundant, consistent case law clearly establishing that a BOR must lend much greater weight to the initial spontaneous declarations made prior to the Commission's decision than to statements made later to justify or improve the claimant's situation in the face of an unfavourable decision from the Commission. Application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 37391
Full Text of Decision 37391
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Where there is a direct contradiction, ignoring clear oral evidence in preference of hearsay written statements can amount to an erroneous finding of fact made by the Board without regard for the material before it.
Decision 36927
Full Text of Decision 36927
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in principle by ignoring direct, oral evidence which was subject to cross-examination, in favour of indirect hearsay that was not subject to testing by cross-examination. BOR gave its decision without regard for the material before it. Matter is referred back before a newly constituted Board of Referees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0270.96
Full Text of Decision A-0270.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that it was up to the Board of Referees to consider the ultimate question, which concerned not only which of the two versions had to be preferred, but whether, even if the employer’s version were set aside, the testimony of the claimant could be relied upon, given his previous statements. The BOR had a duty to weigh the testimony and previous statements with care, but preferred to accept the claimant’s testimony and ignored the contradictions on the record. The FCA agreed with the Umpire’s decision to set aside the decision of the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 29477
Full Text of Decision 29477
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Board ignores the claimant's statutory statement, and accepts his testimony at the hearing. Objective evidence giving more credibility to the first statement which was written in simple, common and specific language.
Decision 25154
Full Text of Decision 25154
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The Board did not take into account the statutory declarations made by the co-owner and the claimant herself. The fact that the Board totally set aside two statutory declarations constitutes an error in law. (CUB 22722).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
