Decision 52596
Full Text of Decision 52596
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Claimant was under a court order to make family maintenance payments and payments fell into arrears. As a consequence, claimant's license to drive a motor vehicle was suspended. Being a truck driver and no other job being available at his workplace, claimant quit his job. Umpire found that although claimants says he had to quit, the problem he created wilfully amounts to misconduct and his job had to be terminated. Both circumstances are dealt with together in the statute and the BOR made no reviewable error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
personal qualifications |
|
Decision A-0748.98
Full Text of Decision A-0748.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Commission made 3 decisions with respect to an allocation of severance monies. Claimant's appeal filed after the 2nd decision. The BOR and the Umpire determined that the Commission had rendered a decision after the notice of appeal and allowed the claimant's appeal. The FCA found that both the BOR and the Umpire erred as they treated the appeal as relating to the 3rd decision of the Commission rather than the 2nd decision. Principle stated in Von Findenigg (A-0737.82) that any decision made after an appeal is null and void is maintained.
Decision 42401
Full Text of Decision 42401
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0748.98.
Decision 39890
Full Text of Decision 39890
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
BOR focussed its decision on financial factors and did not take into consideration if the number of hours per week dedicated to the new business constituted a full-working week within the legislation.
Decision A-0210.96
Full Text of Decision A-0210.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Unethical behaviour on the part of the claimant, who resigned. Voluntary quit without just cause according to the Board of Referees. The Umpire added that dismissal seemed to be a reasonable decision given the acts of disloyalty. Umpire's decision nevertheless confirmed: the result remains the same. References made to FCA decisions in Dufour, Easson and Eppel. Appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Decision 22055
Full Text of Decision 22055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1598.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision A-1598.92
Full Text of Decision A-1598.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
The notions of "dismissal for misconduct" and "voluntarily leaving" may be two distinct abstract notions, but they are dealt with together in s. 28 and 30. By interpreting the facts in a slightly different manner and concluding to quitting rather than dismissal, the Board did not err.
Disqualified under the misconduct provisions. The Board found that claimant quit without just cause. As per the Umpire, the Board cannot substitute its own opinion and decide on another ground. The Umpire erred. The Board did not stray from the subject matter it was called upon to consider.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision A-1398.92
Full Text of Decision A-1398.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
CEIC stated it was a voluntary leaving, the Board, a dismissal. According to the Umpire, there could be no question of referring the matter back to the Board of referees so that it could try to find the existence of misconduct when the CEIC has treated the matter as voluntary departure. Error in law.
Claimant absented himself from his employment without informing his employer. Board stated it was misconduct and allowed the appeal. The Board, and in his turn the Umpire, should have considered whether there had been a dismissal and if that dismissal was provoked by the claimant's misconduct.
Decision 21715
Full Text of Decision 21715
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1398.92
Decision 19940
Full Text of Decision 19940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Notice of rejection based on Reg. 43(1)(b) and the fact of being coadventurer. According to Board, no proof of employment under 43(1)(b) and coadventurer is found under 43(1)(a). I am cancelling Board's decision and allowing CEIC to reinitiate procedures by sending out new notice of rejection.
Decision 19346
Full Text of Decision 19346
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
As per CUB 11108, the Commission must rescind that decision, thus aborting the appeal, issue a new decision with a fresh period for appeal. This is in fact what it attempted to do. I believe that it is a reasonable course to follow, consistent with natural justice. [p._8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 17627A
Full Text of Decision 17627A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Decision not unemployed under Sections 8 and 10(2); the Board goes by Reg. 42(4) as argued by CEIC. CEIC cannot change horses in middle of stream. If so wishing, must cancel original decision and deliver new notice.
Decision 16859
Full Text of Decision 16859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Claimant, following childbirth, is available at night. Notice dated 19-7 stated she had no babysitter. Appeal filed 16-8. Additional information obtained 17-8. Previous ruling rescinded and new one issued 24-8 stating undue restriction. Procedure acceptable as per CUB 11108.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Decision 13520
Full Text of Decision 13520
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Seamen's holiday. Decision relating to earnings was amended to hold not unemployed one month after insured appealed. Amended decision void and case referred back to CEIC for redetermination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Decision 13093
Full Text of Decision 13093
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
Notice referred to reg. 43(1)(b) and Board's decision based on 43(1)(a). The Commission must choose its grounds in precise terms and be prepared to defend them; the Board's decision is declared null; this leaves it open to the Commission to reinstitute proceedings if it so wishes.
Decision 12422
Full Text of Decision 12422
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
The Commission concedes since s.10 and reg. 43 were erroneously invoked. Appeal allowed but Commission may reconsider claim under s.43.
Decision 11994
Full Text of Decision 11994
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
If a wrong reason [voluntary leaving instead of misconduct] is given by the insurance officer for the disqualification, then the Board should maintain the appeal leaving it open to him to reimpose it for the proper reasons. [p. 5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Decision 11108
Full Text of Decision 11108
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
If the Commission seeks to invoke s.86 after claimant has appealed, clearly it must rescind that decision, thus aborting the appeal, and so notify claimant. Thereupon, it may issue a new decision with a fresh period given to claimant to appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
forms not received from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision A-0737.82
Full Text of Decision A-0737.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
1st notice refers to reg. 39(a). Case upheld by Board under 39(b). 2nd notice refers to s.41 and is a nullity. The Umpire was correct in setting aside the Board's decision. However, to leave the matter there does not entitle claimant to benefit. 41(10) to be considered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
discretionary power waiver or variation of requirements |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Decision 29495
Full Text of Decision 29495
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
The Board allows the claimant's appeal on the basis of an error as to the effective date of the disqualification. According to the Umpire, the claimant did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the clerical error.
Decision A0021.95
Full Text of Decision A0021.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
In light of the claimant's statement, we are convinced that the claimant suffered no prejudice from the fact that the notice sent by the Commission referred to section 31 of the Regulation rather than section 30.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 26229
Full Text of Decision 26229
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0021.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 20207
Full Text of Decision 20207
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0853.91
Decision A-0853.91
Full Text of Decision A-0853.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
We all agree that the claimant was not prejudiced by reason of the fact that the CEIC's notice referred to para. 43(1)(a) instead of 43(1)(b). It is clear that he was fully aware of the grounds invoked to justify the denial of benefit. The Umpire did not err by upholding the Board's decision.
Decision 22205
Full Text of Decision 22205
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
James Bay worker on three-weeks unpaid leave because of long work hours; informed afterwards that he is laid off. Point in dispute: three-week antidating. Antidating granted by the judge; however it is deemed that he is not unemployed; para. 10(4) and Reg. 37(3).
Decision 20606
Full Text of Decision 20606
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Reference to ss. 44(1) replaced by 42(4) after claimant's appeal. HAMILTON and VON FINDENIGG referred to. I think it is illogical to hold against the CEIC what is a rather minor error, as it had no obligation to do so. Claimant had fully understood the content of the notice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Decision 19006
Full Text of Decision 19006
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Not unemployed as from 24-10-89 according to the notice; upheld by the Board. A typing error: it was 24-10-88. VON FINDENIGG and CUB-14631 relied on by the insured person. They concerned a second notice issued by CEIC, whereas in this case we are dealing with a typing error.
Decision 16233
Full Text of Decision 16233
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0128.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0128.89
Full Text of Decision A-0128.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Disentitled from 7-4 to 28-9 by reason of his farming activities under ss. 43(3) dealing with off-season from 1-10 to 31-3. Held by Umpire that claimant was well aware of the ground for disentitlement; no prejudice. Upheld by FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 17691
Full Text of Decision 17691
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
The notice speaks of wages where as it is in fact vacation pay. The insured person sites HAMILTON. It is clear that the effect of Regs 57 and 58 are the same, whether the issue is one of wages or vacation. As the SC stated, this would have form prevail over substance.
Decision 16470
Full Text of Decision 16470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Commission relied on reg. 58(3) to prorate earnings and submits this was incorrectly done and reg. 58(4) is to be used. Same situation as in CUB 12601. The contract provided for wages to be paid to claimant without performing continuous services. The allocation was correct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Decision 14914
Full Text of Decision 14914
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0504.88
Decision A-0504.88
Full Text of Decision A-0504.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Alleges that the question to decide was not whether she had been available but whether the reason given in support of non-availability was justified. As per Umpire, issue not limited to this reason. She had to prove the larger issue of availability. Upheld by FC.
Decision 12601
Full Text of Decision 12601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
University teacher who did not teach during the last 3 weeks of his contract ending 30-4. Held by Board that salary was to be allocated under reg. 58(3) to 30-4. The Board reached the right decision but not for the good reasons. Reg. 58(4) applies.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Decision 11882
Full Text of Decision 11882
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
The Board found that there was misconduct. It would be harsh to suggest there was misconduct. Rather there was a complete misunderstanding with employer and she left without just cause. I am not disturbing the finding of the Board and the one-week disqualification.
Decision 11564
Full Text of Decision 11564
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Summary:
Disentitled as not available during an additional 6-week leave of absence requested of employer following childbirth. This is the wrong issue. Held to be not unemployed. If I am in error, she should be disqualified 6 weeks for quitting. Proper result reached in the end for the wrong reasons.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Decision 22862
Full Text of Decision 22862
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Real estate agent; UIC erred in basing its decision on ss. 44(1), rather than para. 43(1)b). DOMINIQUE explained. It is unacceptable that UIC would give the claimant a notice citing s. 44 and subsequently indicate, in its submissions to the Board, that it was a case of application of ss. 43(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision 22208
Full Text of Decision 22208
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Restriction: no nights. Decision: considered employed to full extent of availability. It is now suggested by CEIC that allowing a 5-week period would have been reasonable. This has never been discussed and assumes that she would have refused after warning to broaden her job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
Decision 19688
Full Text of Decision 19688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0516.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Decision A-0516.91
Full Text of Decision A-0516.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Notice of refusal 10-5 based on refusal of work. Appeal to Board 3-6. Amended notice sent 17-6: voluntary leaving nullifies first notice and gives new right of appeal. Second notice held unacceptable: not authorized by s. 43 (no monies paid) nor 86. Judgment upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Decision 19812
Full Text of Decision 19812
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Sum having value of remuneration distributed according to Reg. 58(10); case granted by Board; appealed by CEIC stating Reg. 58(18)(b) applicable. CEIC cannot now change courses midstream and refer to 58(18)(b) as new motive.
Decision 17504
Full Text of Decision 17504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Claimant started to work in real estate in 5-86. Notice sent to her in 6-87 saying disentitled from 5-87. Board upheld disentitlement from 5-86. Claimant argues that 5-86 was not an issue. CEIC alleges typographical error and correct date is 5-86. Held that Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15302A
Full Text of Decision 15302A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Claimant disentitled because he was engaged in business on his own account. The Board found he was not so engaged but was an employee. This should have settled the issue. It may well be he could have been disentitled on other grounds but Board limited to actual grounds invoked.
Decision 17120
Full Text of Decision 17120
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
CEIC must carefully choose the grounds on which it disqualifies the insured person and be able to prove those grounds. It appears that CEIC took the wrong direction by not referring to Reg. 43(1) and the notion of "co-venturer" but rather to Reg. 57(8).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Decision 15449A
Full Text of Decision 15449A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Contract covering the period from 3-12-85 to 11-4-86, excluding the period from 22 to 29-12-85. The sum of $408 distributed from 22 to 29-12-85, in accordance with Regulation 58(3). Not a period of teaching within the meaning of 58(3). Too late for CEIC to rely on 58(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
winter holidays |
|
Decision 16183
Full Text of Decision 16183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
The right to recall does not constitue employment. This is in fact refusal to apply for a job and not voluntary termination. The Board and the judge can only rule on the decision rendered and not on that which CEIC could have or should have made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Decision 15223
Full Text of Decision 15223
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
It may be that CEIC could have disentitled her because her actions and attitude showed that she was not seriously interested in working. But it chose the fact she wished to work days only. The CEIC must choose its grounds carefully. It cannot switch grounds once appealed. [p. 5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 12746
Full Text of Decision 12746
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
The only issue is whether claimant is employed a full working week under reg. 44. Whether he was self-employed under reg. 43 does not enter into the question. The Commission cannot change the basis of disentitlement after appeal launched: see FINDENIGG.
Decision 12234
Full Text of Decision 12234
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
The fact situation here should have been dealt with under s.27, not 14(a). However, there is no authority to convert a notice of disqualification given for one reason into a disqualification for another. See VON FINDENIGG.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
transportation difficulties |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Decision T-2064.85
Full Text of Decision T-2064.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Disqualified for voluntary leaving 6-5. Appeal filed 23-5. Amended notice showing misconduct sent 30-5. Board allows appeal regarding first notice and holds second notice as void. 3rd notice sent by CEIC showing misconduct. Writ of mandamus. Benefits to be paid under s. 87.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Decision 11097
Full Text of Decision 11097
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the Commission should choose its grounds carefully when it renders its decision, and should then be prepared to substantiate those grounds, and no others, if decision is appealed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision 11108
Full Text of Decision 11108
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
Pleadings serve the purpose of defining the issues in courts of record and may do so even if the hearing be summary in nature. The Commission is not permitted to switch issues after claimant appeals.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
forms not received from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision A-0629.04
Full Text of Decision A-0629.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Board of Referees had failed to consider relevant evidence that supported the allegations of misconduct, and that the umpire was justified to intervene and give the decision that the Board of Referees should have given.
Decision 61907
Full Text of Decision 61907
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0629.04
Decision A-0043.02
Full Text of Decision A-0043.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Umpire did not err by dealing with the question the Board of Referees had failed to ask, that is, whether the claimant had breached an obligation imposed by his employment contract, and whether, by extension, he had lost his job as a result of his own misconduct.
Decision 40214
Full Text of Decision 40214
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimants admitted that the alleged facts caused their dismissal. BOR went against the jurisprudence in overlooking these facts and their interpretation of the jurisprudence was erroneous in law and in fact and was made in a perverse or capricious manner and without regard for the material before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 22055
Full Text of Decision 22055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1598.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision A-1598.92
Full Text of Decision A-1598.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Board substituted the misconduct disqualification for one for voluntarily leaving. The Board did not stray from the subject matter it was called upon to consider. The principle that its jurisdiction is limited to dealing with the decision made by the CEIC, as stated in HAMILTON, was respected.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 19923
Full Text of Decision 19923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The decision on appeal was that the claimant had not proven that he was capable and available because he had left his job for reasons of health and had not provided adequate proof of his capacity. The Board made no findings with respect to his capacity but only his job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 19821
Full Text of Decision 19821
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The only issue before the Board was whether the CEIC decision as communicated to claimant, which related exclusively to his attendance at a course of study, was a proper determination. To consider other restrictions unrelated thereto would conflict withprinciples of fairness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
Decision 18083
Full Text of Decision 18083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimant working full-time in wife's business without pay. Reg. 44 applied. The Commission did not allege self-employment or co-adventure, matters dealt with under reg. 43, as the basis of its decision. Failing this and any proof of remuneration, the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
business of a spouse |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 17308
Full Text of Decision 17308
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Disentitled due to restrictions while attending courses. It is argued the Board ought not to have relied upon notes from potential employers as this was not an active job search. This might have been a basis on which to deny UI, but it was not the ground the Commission adopted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work not at same time |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
Decision 17249
Full Text of Decision 17249
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Declared not to be unemployed since she had control over her working hours. The Board upheld the decision stating that she did have set hours. It is consistently established that a Board cannot accept a ground other than that invoked by CEIC. Appeal granted.
Decision 17141
Full Text of Decision 17141
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The issue was lack of a job search, child care and intent to seek work. The Board clearly accepted claimant's evidence on this matter but maintained unavailability based on restricted type of work. It was an error to make any findings in this regard.
Decision 15923
Full Text of Decision 15923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in part when it found that claimant was not available. The issue related to claimant's employment under ss.10(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 |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision 15693
Full Text of Decision 15693
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Did not answer the questionnaire of 4-5; stated he was not available from 25-5 to 18-6. If he began to look for a job on 4-5, he became available on 4-5 since the issue here is one of availability, not of section 40, which was not mentioned in the notice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
request for information |
|
Decision 15490
Full Text of Decision 15490
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimant disentitled because she did not take steps to be advised of job offers while absent. Upheld by Board on the ground she could not shorten her visit. That was not the issue which claimant had been notified. Decision set aside.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Decision A-0175.87
Full Text of Decision A-0175.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Antedate denied by Board because claimant was not available for work. It is trite law that what a Board or Umpire must deal with is the decision that the Commission made, not that which it might or should have made. Availability had nothing at all to do with antedating.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
Decision 14797
Full Text of Decision 14797
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Reason for disentitlement was that claimant was unduly restricting the acceptable types of work. The Board focused entirely upon restrictions as to hours and wage rate. The Board should have considered instead the reason for which the Commission disentited the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Decision 14686
Full Text of Decision 14686
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Decision set aside under 80(a) because the Board acted beyond its jurisdiction. It decided a question which was not before it. It decided that claimant had quit his job without just cause whereas the decision was that he had refused a job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 14440
Full Text of Decision 14440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
By finding that claimant was primarily interested in pursuing her own business and therefore restricting her availability, the Board did not limit itself to the issue, namely whether claimant's wage expectation limited her availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 12874
Full Text of Decision 12874
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Disentitled for being on vacation. Found not to be so by Board but case dismissed due to no job search list. A party has the right to know the case against him and be afforded adequate opportunity to answer. Case to be reheard so that such opportunity be given.
Decision 12780
Full Text of Decision 12780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Disentitled because attending to child who was ill. Dismissed by Board because no job search list. Decision not to be based on a different issue. Claimant goes to hearing expecting to answer identified issue. Breach of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 11424
Full Text of Decision 11424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The majority answered a different question from that which was correctly posed and thereby miscontrued the law and exceeded their jurisdiction. Question: Was claimant unemployed? Decision: Claimant cannot claim benefits as unemployed as he was not available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Decision 11097
Full Text of Decision 11097
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The ground invoked by the Commission was that claimant was working full working weeks. That is the decision she appealed. The Board focussed its attention on whether she had been making adequate job searches. That was not the issue she was prepared to meet.
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 11076
Full Text of Decision 11076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Decision appealed was based on a finding that claimant was engaged in business whereas the Board focussed on availability and job search. Referred back to Board.
Decision 69987
Full Text of Decision 69987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees in this case did exceed their jurisdiction by eliminating the penalty under s. 38 as assessed by the Commission. Once the Board of Referees confirm that the claimant had made a misrepresentation and made it knowingly, then the Commission had a right to impose a financial penalty which was followed by a notice of violation. The notice of violation automatically follows the penalty. The Board of Referees did not have the power to eliminate the penalty as it did not have the power to do that under s. 38 of the Act.
Decision A0455.06
Full Text of Decision A0455.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
In dealing with a case of insufficient hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits, the issue is whether the Board of Referees had the jurisdiction to decide to extend the qualifying period, a matter that had not been the subject of a decision by the Commission and was not properly before the Board. The Court ruled that both the Board and the Umpire exceeded their jurisdiction in extending the qualifying period. The proper avenue for the Board would have been to refer the matter back to the Commission under section 82 of the EIR for investigation and report.
Decision A-0542.02
Full Text of Decision A-0542.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
Claimant was disqualified for Volontary Leaving then finds new employment but does not work enough hours to re-qualify. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that neither the Board of Referees nor the Umpire had jurisdiction to review the original disqualification since it never had been appealed.
Decision 54922
Full Text of Decision 54922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0542.02
Decision A-0016.94
Full Text of Decision A-0016.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
The issue before the Board was the length of the benefit period. However, the Board allowed benefit on the basis that claimant was available for work during a period of disentitlement. In deciding that question, the Board erred by answering a question which was not before it on the appeal.
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-0371.93
Full Text of Decision A-0371.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the jurisdiction of the Board is in respect of decisions actually made or that should have been made by the Commission. The Board does not possess the jurisdiction to rule on a matter not raised by a claimant with the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
a requirement |
|
| antedate |
applicability |
implicit request |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision 17888
Full Text of Decision 17888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
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 |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 14858A
Full Text of Decision 14858A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
Entitlement to adoption benefits at issue. The Board allowed an antedate to grant claimant such benefits. The Board has no jurisdiction to answer a question that was not put to it. See reg. 63. Here, the Commission made no decision regarding antedating.
Decision 12859
Full Text of Decision 12859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
If the referees' [recommendation at the end of their decision] meant to impose a subsequent disentitlement on a different ground, then they acted beyond their jurisdiction. Otherwise it is simply to be ignored. Whether it ever becomes an issue is for the Commission to ponder.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 11424
Full Text of Decision 11424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
The majority answered a different question from that which was correctly posed and thereby miscontrued the law and exceeded their jurisdiction. Question: Was claimant unemployed? Decision: Claimant cannot claim benefits as unemployed as he was not available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Decision 11396
Full Text of Decision 11396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
The Commission ruled that claimant, a teacher on leave, was eligible for benefits from 16-4 to 29-6 and benefits were paid. The Board upheld the disentitlement for summer and found claimant not available from 16-4. This issue was not before the Board for a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
Decision 11005
Full Text of Decision 11005
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Summary:
The Board upheld the disentitlement from 13-1, then the CEIC terminated it 13-3. Claimant said that termination should be 12-2. This decision is not one of the Board but one made by the CEIC after the Board's decision. The latter decision has not been appealed and I have no authority to review it.
Decision 30735
Full Text of Decision 30735
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
First notice of distribution sent 27-5-92. Appealed 12-6-92. Second notice send 16-6-92 and third notice sent 16-7-92. Possible revision pursuant to 43 and 86(A) if there are new facts, if the decision was made before an essential fact was known or if it is based on an error regarding this fact.
Decision 25169
Full Text of Decision 25169
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Voluntary leaving notice on 30-6-92. Appeal on 17-7-92. Notice changed to refusal of suitable employment on 3-8-92. The Board manifestly erred in law. The Commission could not invoke s. 86 to change a decision which was already pending an appeal (VON FINDENIGG and POULIN cited).
Decision A-0516.91
Full Text of Decision A-0516.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
What the Commission in effect is asking amounts to a statement that the judgment in VON FINDENIGG is no longer applicable and should not be followed. We cannot grant such a request inasmuch as we are not convinced that it is erroneous nor that the jurisprudence has reduced its binding effect.
Notice of refusal 10-5 based on refusal of work. Appeal to Board 3-6. Amended notice sent 17-6: voluntary leaving nullifies first notice and gives new right of appeal. Second notice held unacceptable: not authorized by s. 43 (no monies paid) nor 86. Judgment upheld by FC.
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 19688
Full Text of Decision 19688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0516.91
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 17695
Full Text of Decision 17695
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Notice of a decision on 9-7 stating misconduct; appeal to the Board on 22-7; notice amended on 28-7 stating voluntary termination of employment. I agree with VON FINDENIGG that an error by CEIC cannot be changed once the appeal has been lodged. 2nd notice was null and void.
Decision 14631
Full Text of Decision 14631
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Notice of disentitlement effective 29-1-86 issued 30-1-86; appeal filed 4-2-86; decision amended without new facts 13-2-86 effective 3-11-85 to correct the error. CEIC had no authority to amend the decision unless new facts were presented. Referred to the 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 14620
Full Text of Decision 14620
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Appeal against first denial; CEIC cannot amend the decision, add new grounds and state that the appeal will follow its course. No new facts; 41(10) not used, action beyond jurisdiction; examines VON FINDENIGG, CUB-11108 and 11250; referred to the Board.
Decision 13520
Full Text of Decision 13520
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Seamen's holiday. Decision relating to earnings was amended to hold not unemployed one month after insured appealed. Amended decision void and case referred back to CEIC for redetermination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 12780
Full Text of Decision 12780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
The Commission must choose its grounds with care and be prepared to support them on appeal. It cannot switch to another in the middle of proceeding. Neither may the Board do this.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 12631
Full Text of Decision 12631
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Notice sent 10-12 saying not unemployed. Appeal 10-1. Notice sent 16-1 saying no interruption of earnings. It is now well established that where the Commission has refused a claim on one ground and that refusal has been appealed, another ground cannot be invoked. See FINDENIGG.
Decision 12305
Full Text of Decision 12305
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Request for antedating renewal claim treated as if initial under s.9(4). The claimant appealed and the Commission amended the decision and relied on s.41(4). The Board had no jurisdiction to decide as it did, the decision was a nullity.
Decision T-2064.85
Full Text of Decision T-2064.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
Disqualified for voluntary leaving 6-5. Appeal filed 23-5. Amended notice showing misconduct sent 30-5. Board allows appeal regarding first notice and holds second notice as void. 3rd notice sent by CEIC showing misconduct. Writ of mandamus. Benefits to be paid under s. 87.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision 11108
Full Text of Decision 11108
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
The Commission argues that ss.43(1) is the remedy to VON FINDENIGG to amend a notice following appeal. Given the Commission's refusal, no benefits have yet been paid and so the cited provision has no application because it does not address the issue.
VON FINDENIGG referred to. In purporting to adjudicate upon those 2 nullities as if they were the subject of the appeal, the Board lost, or never acquired, jurisdiction. The Board must adjudicate an issue fully appreciated by the parties.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
forms not received from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision A-0737.82
Full Text of Decision A-0737.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Summary:
1st notice refers to reg. 39(a). Case upheld by Board under 39(b). 2nd notice refers to s.41 and is a nullity. The Umpire was correct in setting aside the Board's decision. However, to leave the matter there does not entitle claimant to benefit. 41(10) to be considered.
Once the appeal procedure is invoked it was too late for the Commission to exercise its authority under s.86, even though it does not expressly put any time limit. Otherwise a lower tribunal could intervene while the matter is pending before a higher court. [p.5]
As the Commission's refusal was under appeal when the 2nd notice was issued, the matter was out of the Commission's hands and the notice was a nullity. I take this view notwithstanding s.86. No new fact had been presented and no mistake as to a materialfact. [p.4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
discretionary power waiver or variation of requirements |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 18924A
Full Text of Decision 18924A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Benefit period from 23-3-86 to 21-3-87; notice of 15-4-87: pension income from 1-3-87; appeal on 22-9-87; notice of 30-10-87: pension income from 23-3-86 to 1-3-87. The second notice is not an amendment to the first, within the meaning of VON FINDENIG: periods and amounts differ.
Decision 20606
Full Text of Decision 20606
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Reference to ss. 44(1) replaced by 42(4) after claimant's appeal. HAMILTON and VON FINDENIGG referred to. I think it is illogical to hold against the CEIC what is a rather minor error, as it had no obligation to do so. Claimant had fully understood the content of the notice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 17819
Full Text of Decision 17819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Notice of disqualification stating voluntary cessation of employment; lodged an appeal referring to misconduct; notice amended stating misconduct; new appeal. The Board relied on VON FINDENIGG in order not to rule on the 2nd notice. The principle at issue is not that of VON FINDENIGG; 2nd notice valid.
Decision 16859
Full Text of Decision 16859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Claimant, following childbirth, is available at night. Notice dated 19-7 stated she had no babysitter. Appeal filed 16-8. Additional information obtained 17-8. Previous ruling rescinded and new one issued 24-8 stating undue restriction. Procedure acceptable as per CUB 11108.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 13649
Full Text of Decision 13649
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Disentitlement terminated on 25-11-85. Notice correcting the date to 25-2-86 sent 5 days after receiving appeal. I am satisfied that there was an error as to the date, that s. 43 allows this type of correction to be made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0780.85
Full Text of Decision A-0780.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Notice of non-availability sent on 17-2. Appeal lodged 5 days after changing her initial statements. No change decision 6-3. Notice sent 19-3 replaces that of 17-2. Contrary to VON FINDENIGG, this was one and only notice, said the Umpire. No comment from FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 11250
Full Text of Decision 11250
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0780.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
