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 |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
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 |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
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 |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
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 |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Decision 36621A
Full Text of Decision 36621A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
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 |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Decision 36620A
Full Text of Decision 36620A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
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 |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Decision 29357
Full Text of Decision 29357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
If a Board recognizes that a claimant may be able to provide additional information in support of her claim, it should adjourn the hearing so as to afford the claimant an opportunity to present that information to the Board rather than to the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
person having immediate interest |
|
Decision 26883
Full Text of Decision 26883
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
The claimant cites failure to observe a principle of natural justice, as he did not receive the appeal docket prior to his appearance before the Board. The Board refused to postpone the case so he could read the file. This is a case of flagrant violation of the principle.
Decision 22735
Full Text of Decision 22735
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
The Board's refusal to grant an adjournment of the hearing in the knowledge that claimant would not be able to attend on the date scheduled for hearing deprived him of a fair opportunity to answer the case against him, and thus violated a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Decision 21604
Full Text of Decision 21604
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant had been present both other times but was not for the 3rd sitting. To justify a decision to proceed, a Board should carefully record its reasons for refusing an adjournment or otherwise explain this unusual circumstance. The Board failed to do this.
Decision 21558
Full Text of Decision 21558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant appealed and asked for more time to gather documentation if necessary. There was a denial of a fair hearing. The Board did not grant an adjournment to enable claimant to obtain more documentation. Yet it was obviously influenced by the lack of further documentation.
Decision 15313
Full Text of Decision 15313
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Denial of natural justice in that the Board, knowing that claimant could not attend, did not adjourn the hearing. The right to a fair hearing presupposes the claimant's opportunity to state her case.
Decision 14859
Full Text of Decision 14859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Unable to attend hearing. Phoned many times without avail. The Commission subsequently offered claimant a rehearing. He chose instead to proceed to Umpire. That is an option open to him. But this does not negate the fact he was unable to present his case before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
overtime |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
overtime |
Decision 13664
Full Text of Decision 13664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
New facts presented at hearing. The board had jursidiction to adjourn the hearing to allow the Commission to resume its investigation. Rule 65 gives the chairman some latitude. The board would have erred if it had refused. [p. 7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 13396
Full Text of Decision 13396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Unable to attend because working and requested an adjournment. I fail to understand why it was refused. Jurisprudence has established that a party to an appeal is not entitled to an adjournment as of right without good reason. Inability to attend is a good reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 11171
Full Text of Decision 11171
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Representative detained elsewhere because of negotiations and insured also had to be absent. Even if there is no formal request for adjournment, everyone has sacred right to be heard. Case referred back to board.
Decision 11022
Full Text of Decision 11022
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
One cannot criticize the Board's refusal to grant a 3rd postponement. Within its discretion to do so. Claimant cannot pick and choose date. Notification of refusal of postponement delivered prior to hearing. However, new hearing granted due to special circumstances.
Decision 65804
Full Text of Decision 65804
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
|
Summary:
Case law has consistently stated that unless there are particular circumstances that are obvious, the issue of credibility must be left to the discretion of the Board of Referees, which is better able to make a decision on it. The Umpire will intervene only if the Board's decision on the matter is unreasonable given evidence based on facts that were submitted to them to make its decision.
Decision 42124
Full Text of Decision 42124
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Credibility determinations are the centre of the role of a BOR. It is the BOR that has witnesses before it and has the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses. In the absence of evidence that the Board ignored evidence that was before it or took into account irrelevant considerations in arriving at a credibility determination, it is not open to an Umpire, on appeal from a decision of the BOR, to interfere with a credibility determination.
Decision A-0418.97
Full Text of Decision A-0418.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Commission employees need not present themselves for cross-examination before a BOR where alleged admissions by claimants are found within notes prepared by the Commission. The BOR is entitled to make a specific finding that a claimant is a credible witness notwithstanding conflicting statements found within notes taken by Commission staff during an interview. In the end, it is the role of the BOR to determine what weight, if any, should be given to them.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 39925
Full Text of Decision 39925
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Hearings before BOR are informal and BOR may chose such evidence as impresses them which would not necessarily be admissible in a court of law. Faced with contradictory evidence presented by employer and claimant, BOR give the weight to it as they believe is warranted - that is their area of expertise - credibility of the evidence.
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 A-1002.96
Full Text of Decision A-1002.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Umpire confirmed that, with respect to credibility and appreciation of the facts, it is not up to the Umpire to substitute his decision for that of the Board of Referees when, as in this case, the claimant failed to prove that the BOR based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. The BOR’s decision was fully based on significant items of evidence in the file. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 24029
Full Text of Decision 24029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Whereas in this case there are conflicting accounts of the facts by the claimant and the employer, the question is essentially one of credibility. Here I cannot say that the issue of credibility was resolved. I must, therefore, substitute my conclusion for that of the Board.
Decision 20431
Full Text of Decision 20431
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Boards are entitled to draw inferences from facts which are put before them. They also are not required to apply the strict rules of evidence that would pertain in a court of law; a much more informal and flexible approach is allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
Decision 18063
Full Text of Decision 18063
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
One way to test the credibility is for Board members to question the claimant directly, themselves, with respect to her explanation. The Board cannot be faulted for treating self-serving, after the fact statements with some degree of scepticism.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misinformation from commission |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
under oath |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 16222
Full Text of Decision 16222
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The proceedings are intended to provide an expeditious and inexpensive process for appeal. Hearsay evidence may be accepted. There is no principle that the Board must accept the facts as stated by claimant or those as stated by the employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 15033
Full Text of Decision 15033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Oral statements by claimant regarding job search efforts completely ignored by Board. Referees, so long as they do not act capriciously or perversely, may believe or disbelieve a claimant, but they may not ignore what claimant says.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
Decision 14855
Full Text of Decision 14855
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The question of credibility is one for the Board. The Board should have been directed to determine for itself whether it believed the claimant or the employer, which story made most sense in the light of material on file and oral evidence.
Decision 13240
Full Text of Decision 13240
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
That it is necessary for the Board to weigh the credibility of the evidence presented. Exactly. That is indeed a highly important function of the referees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Decision 12452
Full Text of Decision 12452
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The Board, being an administrative tribunal, is not bound by the strict rules of evidence which apply in criminal or civil proceedings. To the extent that the employer's evidence conflicted with that of claimant, it was certainly within the competence of the Board to decide which was more credible.
Decision 12062
Full Text of Decision 12062
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Its function is to make the appropriate findings of fact or draw the necessary inferences from the evidence before it and then apply the law to those facts.
Decision 11823
Full Text of Decision 11823
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
While the claimant disputes much of this evidence, it is well established that credibility is an issue for the Board to assess. The Board impliedly found the employer's credibility to be weightier than that of the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
leaving early |
|
|
Decision 11655
Full Text of Decision 11655
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The fact that the Board chose to accept the earlier version of the facts given by the claimant rather than the later version is a discretionary matter properly exercisable by the Board and the choice was properly exercised.
Decision 11476
Full Text of Decision 11476
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
It is entirely open to the Board to believe the claimant or to disbelieve her, and also to make a decision on the basis of what it considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Decision 10716
Full Text of Decision 10716
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Duration of work stoppage is often question of fact. Facts are submitted at adversarial hearing before tribunal that must determine which are most important and which version to adopt. This is essence of board's role.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 10685
Full Text of Decision 10685
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Decision may seem questionable based on record. Credibility assessed at hearing; board believed insured. Responsiblity of board to do this. It is like jury and trier of fact. Judge may not substitute self for jury.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision 25519
Full Text of Decision 25519
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
The Board refused to proceed with the appeal, simply stating that, in a previous ruling a year earlier, the claimant was given benefits, that the ruling was not appealed and it concluded that it was bound by the precedent. This is an error, both in fact and law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
interruption |
short period of time |
Decision 19723
Full Text of Decision 19723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
The CEIC may decide not to appeal a particular decision of one Board for reasons having little to do with the merits of the decision but that does not commit the CEIC to following in all cases the decision of that Board. A previous decision of one Boardhere is not determinative.
One Board is not bound by the decision of another but they are all bound by decisions of Umpires. Boards and Umpires are bound by decisions of the Federal Court. As a result, even if one Board decides one way, another may hold that the jurisprudence requires different decisions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Decision 15511
Full Text of Decision 15511
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
Had the Board applied the reasoning in CUB 12949, it would have allowed claimant's appeal. The fact that the decision was under appeal was not a valid reason for the Board to ignore it. But that decision has since been overturned by FC.
Decision 14550
Full Text of Decision 14550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
Of course a decision by a Board in another case is not binding on an Umpire nor does it even constitute jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| 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 |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision A-0233.79
Full Text of Decision A-0233.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
Reg. 166(2) was held to have been validly made in the exercise of the authority conferred by s.58(u) in LANGFORD. Since the ground of attack that is urged here did not have to be considered in LANGFORD, the decision in that case is not a bar to its consideration here. [p.13]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 52792
Full Text of Decision 52792
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant entitled to a maximum of 10 weeks of parental benefits and not the 35 weeks set out in Bill C-32. She appeals on the grounds that the specific provision infringes her right to equality as guaranteed by the Charter. Relying on the FCA decision in Nishri (A-0216.96), the umpire held that the cut-off date of Dec. 31, 2000 was simply a criteria selected by Parliament for determining whether a claimant will be governed by the old rules or the new rules and that it was not based on any personal characteristic of the claimant. Appeal dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
| parental benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
Decision A-0216.96
Full Text of Decision A-0216.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a child on 5-09-90 (prior to the coming into force of Bill C-21 on 18-11-90). She received maternity benefits but was not eligible to parental benefits. The BOR dismissed the appeal: no jurisdiction to consider a Charter issue and so did the Umpire. The FCA held that Umpire failed to deal with the constitutional issue. The Umpire must find that a particular section of the Act contravenes the Charter and that it cannot be saved by Section1. The Court agreed however that Umpires cannot issue declarations of invalidity pursuant to SS.24(1) of the Constitutional Act. Such remedies are reserved to superior courts. Case returned for redetermination on the constitutional issues.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
Decision 22405
Full Text of Decision 22405
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that s.26 (course referrals) discriminates against her in the context of infringing rights guaranteed by ss.15(1) of the Charter. There can be no question that the Board acted correctly in declining to entertain any charter argument per se. See TÉTREAULT-GADOURY.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
charter |
legislation |
|
Decision 17026A
Full Text of Decision 17026A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
As I understand the decision TETREAULT-GADOURY however, it is that Boards have jurisdiction to decide whether or not a claimant is entitled to benefits but not whether or not a particular provision of a statute is to be suspended for being in violation of s.15 of the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
Decision 21007
Full Text of Decision 21007
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
The Board did not err in law by refusing to address the argument that the impugned statutory provisions regarding regional unemployment rates and statistical information violated claimant's guaranteed right of equality under s.15(1) of the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Decision 2122291
Full Text of Decision 2122291
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
The particular UI legislative scheme contemplates that constitutional questions be more appropriately presented to the Umpire, on appeal, rather than to the Board itself. The Board did not have jurisdiction to rule that s. 31 (severance benefit) violated the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| federal court |
role |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
| federal court |
appeal system |
levels |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 12543
Full Text of Decision 12543
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0521.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision A-0521.86
Full Text of Decision A-0521.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
It is clear that neither a Board nor an Umpire have the right to pronounce declarations as to the constitutional validity of statutes and regulations. That is a privilege reserved to the superior Courts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision 53172
Full Text of Decision 53172
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Summary:
BOR members must refrain from constant interruption, questioning rationale of claimants, attempting to substitute their judgment for that of claimants. Their function is to hear both sides and determine issues. Members are permitted to ask questions to clarify issues. Board members should not embark in vexatious arguments with parties. Arguments which take place after the hearing is terminated are also both improper and unacceptable.
Decision 25678
Full Text of Decision 25678
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Summary:
Members of a panel of a Board may ask questions to clear up issues on ambiguous matters, explore matters left vague or bring out relevant matters omitted. Here the Chair seemed more intent on explaining why claimant could not succeed than on establishing a factual record for evaluation.
Decision 22082
Full Text of Decision 22082
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Summary:
Commission counsel sought to file a statement of the Board on the conduct of the hearing, prepared after the fact at the instance of the Commission, to counter claimant's allegations. I refused to permit the introduction on this statement: it was self-serving and new evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 14833
Full Text of Decision 14833
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant says he was not given a fair hearing. Board members have written letters and had them placed on file, contending this is not so. Not proper to seek such letters which are bound to be self-serving. They may create impression of unfairness, 3 against claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 45019
Full Text of Decision 45019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
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 |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 21911
Full Text of Decision 21911
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees, an administrative tribunal, derives its powers solely from the Act and the Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Decision 18781
Full Text of Decision 18781
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Summary:
The Board exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no provision in the UI Act which empowers the Board to make awards of damages, costs or compensation, no matter how deserving the claimant. The remedy did not lie in an appeal to the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
negligence by Commission |
|
|
Decision A-0463.90
Full Text of Decision A-0463.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision ambiguous |
|
Summary:
The only issue has to do with the jurisdiction of the Board to make the second decision and to enter upon the exercise of clarifying or interpreting its earlier decision. There is no statutory mandate for the Board to do as it did, conditions provided in s. 86 not being met.
The parties being at an impasse as to the meaning of the Board's decision, claimant requested a hearing from the Board to seek further clarification. The Board granted the request. The Board, even in the absence of specific statutory authority, had the jurisdiction to do what it did.
Secondly, the fact that the Board undertook to clarify its earlier decision at the specific request of the present applicant cannot in itself confer jurisdiction if there is none in 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 |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 18045
Full Text of Decision 18045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision ambiguous |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0463.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 70449
Full Text of Decision 70449
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
The Commission's allegation with respect to the decision of the Board of Referees is based on section 114(3) of the Act, requiring the Board of Referees to explain its findings on matters of fact material to its decision. The Board of Referees does not give any reason for reversing the Commission's decision on that issue. By failing to do so, it errs in law and warrants the intervention of the Umpire to allow the Commission's appeal and that issue is referred to a differently constituted Board of Referees for a new decision.
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 |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
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 |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 25933
Full Text of Decision 25933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0696.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 26306
Full Text of Decision 26306
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
Held that the maxim "no one is to be twice tried for one fault" does not apply if the Board of Referees neglects to dispose of an issue which is before them to decide and which they are empowered to dispose. It had the jurisdiction to re-open its hearing to deal with the issue. SEVERUD quoted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Decision 21559
Full Text of Decision 21559
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
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 |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 21553
Full Text of Decision 21553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision is wholly inadequate. The Board declined to decide the issue, stating it had no ability to determine whether report cards and warrants were forged and therefore upholding the Commission's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
cards signed by third party |
|
|
Decision 18045
Full Text of Decision 18045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0463.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision ambiguous |
|
Decision A-0463.90
Full Text of Decision A-0463.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
The Board failed in a first decision to dispose of one of the issues before it. The statute does not specify any remedies which the Board is empowered to apply. It simply allowed the appeal without saying which of the decisions was bad. It should be allowed to complete its task.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision ambiguous |
|
Decision 16648A
Full Text of Decision 16648A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
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 |
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 |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0359.85
Full Text of Decision A-0359.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
As the Board's decision does not show clearly whether it considered the question of claimant's availability, the matter should be referred back to it in order that the question be clearly considered and decided.
Decision 12106
Full Text of Decision 12106
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0359.85
Decision 26146
Full Text of Decision 26146
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Long document filed on behalf of employer at the hearing. Claimant taken by surprise. The Board informed her that she could request an adjournment or appeal later to the Umpire. This was misleading. It was not an option which she could reasonably pursue. Appeals to Umpire are restricted to s. 80.
Decision 25228
Full Text of Decision 25228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Reliance on a document transmitted to the Board by a former employer on the date of the hearing is totally unfair. The claimant should always be given an opportunity to be aware of the evidence and be provided with sufficient time to attempt to refute its content.
Decision 22147
Full Text of Decision 22147
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
At one point during the hearing, claimant's representative attempted to introduce in the record a decision by the Labour Board. Commission counsel objected to the introduction of such evidence which came to light after the Board's decision. This objection was well founded in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
union activities |
|
|
Decision 21557
Full Text of Decision 21557
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Quits because of transportation problems; at hearing before the Board, alleges sexual harassment. It is clear that a Board cannot, during the procedure, especially in the absence of the parties concerned, accept such an accusation and use it as a valid reason for quitting.
Decision 20987
Full Text of Decision 20987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
When an employer before the Board alleges facts suggesting misconduct, and those facts appear nowhere in the decision under appeal by the employer, fairness would dictate that claimant be afforded the right to make answer to those allegations before theBoard decides the outcome.
Decision 14576
Full Text of Decision 14576
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Employer sought to introduce evidence showing that employees were encouraged by management to volunteer for lay-off. The Board refused to consider this. As non-availability was based in part on the voluntary nature of lay-off, such evidence was relevant. Violation of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
| 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 |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 13664
Full Text of Decision 13664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
New facts presented at hearing. The board had jursidiction to adjourn the hearing to allow the Commission to resume its investigation. Rule 65 gives the chairman some latitude. The board would have erred if it had refused. [p. 7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Decision 13599
Full Text of Decision 13599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The function of a Board is to decide on the evidence before it, not just on the evidence before the Commission: CUB 10546.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 13029
Full Text of Decision 13029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Appeal to board must be limited to reasons stated in notice of decision; if other reasons cited, board must give insured opportunity to be heard on new reasons.
Decision 12540
Full Text of Decision 12540
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Job searches provided at hearing must be examined to see whether board should terminate finding of non-availability.
Decision 11607
Full Text of Decision 11607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The employer noted that claimant introduced new evidence at the hearing and that he was not given an opportunity to comment on it. But he admits he was given prior notice of hearing and chose not to attend. He must live with the consequences of his choice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
Decision 29339
Full Text of Decision 29339
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
Nothing on file related to the Commission's internal policy referred to by the Board. In any event, the Board and the Umpire must make their own interpretations of the facts and the legislation. Whether the Commission had conflicting internal interpretations is irrelevant. The Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 25241A
Full Text of Decision 25241A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
It is true that the form of Application for UI Benefits is deficient when it asks the question "Did you or will you get any other monies from your last employer". But it is not the form which governs. It is the requirements of the Act and its Regulations which must prevail over the form.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision 24413
Full Text of Decision 24413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
Although the Act clearly states that both criteria must be met, the literature does not include the word "and" between the two requirements. The Board found that the claimant had been severely misled and allowed the additional 5 weeks of parental benefits. The Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
extension of maximum |
|
|
Decision 23828
Full Text of Decision 23828
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
In support of its conclusion, the Board refers to the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles 6.2.5 which is most certainly not binding on the Board or on the Umpire, although it indicates how the Commission agent should interpret "leaving without just cause".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Decision 20091
Full Text of Decision 20091
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
In a letter to the City of Winnipeg, the CEIC stated that from now on benefits under the plan would be considered wage loss instead of a disability pension and "prior cases" would not be reviewed. This led the Umpire to thoroughly examine the reasonableexpectation doctrine.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
disability pension |
|
|
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
vs disability pension |
|
Decision A-1007.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
While administrative policy is entitled to weight and can be an important factor in case of doubt, it cannot be determinative. One cannot rely simply on past practice as the foundation for his claim for exemption of such benefits [strike pay] under the Income Tax Act.
Decision 15683
Full Text of Decision 15683
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
Not clear whether claimant relied upon contents of BC Circular 86-1. However it does not matter whether she did. Instructions by CEIC to its employees on how various sections of the legislation were interpreted and administered, cannot override the actual provisions of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
own contributions |
|
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
| earnings |
pension |
charter |
|
Decision 14268
Full Text of Decision 14268
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
The circular in question [CEIC 83-4] cannot constitute the applicable law, and in any event it was superceded by amendments to Regulations. [p. 4]
Decision 10602
Full Text of Decision 10602
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Summary:
The chairperson obtained a circular from the Commission and applied its contents. I accept claimant's argument that the Board abdicated its decision-making responsibilities and did not make an independent decision. It deferred to the Commission's decision. [p._15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision A-0586.98
Full Text of Decision A-0586.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
The second Board of Referees was not bound by the decision of the earlier BOR. It had to consider the evidence before it. The file before the second BOR contained evidence on the basis of which the BOR could decide as it did, without committing an error of principle.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 41785
Full Text of Decision 41785
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0586.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision A-0737.97
Full Text of Decision A-0737.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
The BOR had the right to reject the evidence after weighing and assessing it, but it could not ignore it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 31589
Full Text of Decision 31589
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
Determined that the beneficiary shall not be excluded until a decision is rendered by the Labour Court. Refusal by the Board to exercise its authority. Case returned to the Board for a decision independent of any Labour Court decision on the beneficiary's grievance.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision A-0694.94
Full Text of Decision A-0694.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
Whether the phrase "in its opinion" has the effect of insulating the Commission's decision to impose a penalty from review by the BOR. Held that BOR possesses the requisite jurisdiction to formulate its own opinion with respect to a false or misleading statement.
The BOR is empowered to engage in a de novo review with respect to factual matters and is in a better position to make objective findings of fact. It is the BOR which functions as a quasi-judicial body not the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 25953
Full Text of Decision 25953
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0694.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 23906
Full Text of Decision 23906
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
In hearing an appeal from the Commission the Board hears the case as a trial de novo, that is it will make its own findings of fact and interpretation of law with the one exception -- the matter of a discretionary exercise by the Commission where the Commission has statutory jurisdiction.
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
The Board allowed the appeal for no other reason than perceived consistency with previous Board and Commission decisions. It did not identify those decisions and failed to make a finding. It did not exercise its jurisdiction in finding that they were bound by those decisions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 16648A
Full Text of Decision 16648A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
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 |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
| 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 14056
Full Text of Decision 14056
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
No obligation for claimant to disprove the Commission's position that she left without just cause. The Board must weigh the evidence for itself and decide what conclusion is appropriate. The Commission's version should not be presumed to be accurate.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 10602
Full Text of Decision 10602
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Summary:
The chairperson obtained a circular from the Commission and applied its contents. I accept claimant's argument that the Board abdicated its decision-making responsibilities and did not make an independent decision. It deferred to the Commission's decision. [p._15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 19484
Full Text of Decision 19484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Summary:
When claimant is not provided with notice of hearing, the decision of the Board must be considered a nullity. It is better to arrange rehearing before a different Board. If impossible, it is essential that the Board start afresh and not be limited to 'new evidence' under s.86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
notice of hearing |
|
Decision 18652
Full Text of Decision 18652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Summary:
Did not receive adequate notice of hearing. Case reheard by same Board. First decision to be treated as a nullity and case to be heard de novo. Board misled as to its powers and procedure: the CEIC submitted that the decision could not be varied unless new facts brought forward.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
notice of hearing |
|
Decision 13208A
Full Text of Decision 13208A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Summary:
Matter reheard by Board because claimant had not received adequate notice of hearing. The Board at 2nd hearing appeared to be under the impression that unless claimant introduced new evidence it had to uphold the Commission's decision. This approach is not authorized by the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
wages or salary |
|
Decision 12729A
Full Text of Decision 12729A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Summary:
Saying "No new evidence submitted" presupposes, in the mind of the Board, that if there is no new evidence, the Commission must be right. Not a question of new evidence; Boards must hear all evidence, whether new, old, good, bad or indifferent.
Decision 12749
Full Text of Decision 12749
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Summary:
The Board considers the Commission's decision as having a prima facie validity which needs to be disproved. Such is not the case. The Board's role is to hear all the evidence and make its own independent judgment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
| misconduct |
union activities |
|
|
| misconduct |
change in duties |
|
|
Decision 10831A
Full Text of Decision 10831A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
personal opinions |
|
Summary:
Function of member of board is to apply law to facts and not to express personal views on a question of principle in order to reach a patently perverse decision. Not a forum for stating personal opinions.
Decision A-0112.00
Full Text of Decision A-0112.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Although the facts were not disputed, the Board of Referees nonetheless allowed the claimant's appeal for reasons of sympathy and equity, ignoring the express provisions of the Act. The Umpire ruled that the BOR could not ignore the provisions of the Act, which it had a duty to apply. In a short decision, the Court ruled that the Umpire had properly determined that the BOR could not refuse to apply the Act for reasons of equity.
Decision 47187
Full Text of Decision 47187
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0112.00.
Decision 39982
Full Text of Decision 39982
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
BOR allowed appeal on the basis that claimant (re-entrant) was misinformed by Commission that she required 20 weeks on insurable employment to qualify instead of 26 weeks under the new legislation effective 30 July 1996. Despite the unfairness perceived in the lack of information provided by Commission, the Board had to apply the new legislation.
Decision 23794
Full Text of Decision 23794
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
He states very emphatically that he is pursuing the matter in an attempt to get the law changed. This is not an issue before the Umpire, as both the Umpire and the Board as well as the Commission itself, have to apply the law and regulations as they stand and have no discretion to make changes.
Decision 23619
Full Text of Decision 23619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The Board, like the Umpire, is obliged to apply the Act and regulations made under the Act. The Board, once again like the Umpire, has no mandate or discretion to do what might be seen to be "fair" or "just" unless, in so doing, it is applying the law to the fact situation before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
supplementary unemployment benefits |
|
|
Decision 20793
Full Text of Decision 20793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0373.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision A-0373.92
Full Text of Decision A-0373.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant was given wrong advice by CEIC staff in the course of moving from Regina to be with fiance in Hull. The Umpire correctly applied the rationale of the GRANGER case and was correct when he decided: The Commission in law owes her no benefits of any kind.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
A Board, like an Umpire, has no equitable jurisdiction under the Act. See GRANGER. To the extent that the Board's decision reflects equitable reasons, that decision would clearly be made in excess of its jurisdiction and would therefore be an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0978.88
Full Text of Decision A-0978.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
In GRANGER, Pratte wrote that a judge is bound by the law and cannot refuse to apply it even on grounds of equity. I adopt this view. To attempt to fashion an equitable remedy would be an improper intrusion into matters within exclusive competence of Parliament.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
charter |
|
|
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
interruption of earnings |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
a requirement |
|
Decision 14951A
Full Text of Decision 14951A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Neither the boards nor the umpires are appointed to criticize the Act. Their duty is to apply it even if they are not in agreement. Only Parliament and the Governor in Council can adopt laws and regulations. It is inappropriate to talk of injustice.
Decision 16041
Full Text of Decision 16041
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If sections of a statute do not cover all situations, it is for Parliament to remedy it if it deems this necessary, and not for judges to undertake by interpretation to fill any perceived gaps.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
sickness defined |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 15036
Full Text of Decision 15036
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If it is not the function of the Supreme Court to question the wisdom of enactments nor to adjudicate upon the merits of basic policies, it is certainly no part of the function of Boards to do so. They are obliged to avoid erring in law but must not question Parliament's wisdom.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0209.87
Full Text of Decision A-0209.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
S. 24 has been applied to the letter but results in a denial of natural justice. The legislation clearly gives rise to this result. In this respect an Umpire has no more right to change the legislation than the Board, said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Decision 13410
Full Text of Decision 13410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0209.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
workers' compensation payments |
|
Decision S-0684.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
According to claimant, the Umpire erred because, to avoid causing injury to claimant, he should have refused to apply the Act. A judge is bound by the Act. He cannot refuse to apply it, even on grounds of equity, said the FC. Upheld by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid into rrsp |
|
Decision 14563
Full Text of Decision 14563
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
While claimant's case is a very sympathetic one, neither the Board nor an Umpire can decide the legal issues on the basis of sympathy nor their conception of what the law should provide. The law applies as it stands.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 14096
Full Text of Decision 14096
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
A correct application of law is not a denial of natural justice. If the law is unjust, it can only be changed by Parliament. The Commission has no discretion but to apply the law.
Decision 14076
Full Text of Decision 14076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
It is difficult in an imperfect world to make law the handmaiden of justice. What our society attempts to achieve is justice, but justice under the rule of law. This is the only way to avoid capricious treatment. Firm principles of law are the best way to get to justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 13343
Full Text of Decision 13343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant admits the legality of the decision (14 weeks out of the 16 required) but he thinks that the decision is unfair. Adjudicating authorities are all bound to interpret the law as it is, not what we think it should be. If changes are to be made, that is Parliament's duty.
Decision 12356
Full Text of Decision 12356
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If there is an unfairness, it arises from the provisions of the Act and Regulations which neither the Board of Referees nor an Umpire can alter. [p. 5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 12299
Full Text of Decision 12299
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
This hearing provided claimant with a forum to express his views, the vexing and difficult results of some UI practices. It is the duty of the Commission and tribunals to apply the law and the results would be much more grievous if the law were applied discriminately. [p. 2]
Decision 12250
Full Text of Decision 12250
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The strict application of the law often leads to results which seem unfair. However, the duty of the Umpire is to apply the law as it is to the facts of the case before him. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
| antedate |
charter |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 12181
Full Text of Decision 12181
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If the Act is to be changed it must be done by Parliament. The CEIC agent, the Board and the Umpire are bound by the Act as it now reads and must interpret it accordingly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Decision A-0398.85
Full Text of Decision A-0398.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
This result is insupportable on any rational appreciation of the policy of the Act. It is, nevertheless, the law and it is for Parliament, not the Court, to amend it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 11432
Full Text of Decision 11432
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The Umpire has no power to alter or amend the express provisions of the Act. Neither is that power vested in the Commission or a Board; the duty of all three is to apply the law as it is.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
Decision 11232
Full Text of Decision 11232
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
CEIC's duty to administer the program according to law. At times application to an individual claimant appears unfair. To disregard the law in order to meet a hard case creates same unfairness to others. The prime rule is to apply law in consistent manner as is humanly possible.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision 11227
Full Text of Decision 11227
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Many claimants feel at times oppressed by the numerous and complex provisions of the UI Act. These produce from time to time consequences perhaps unintended by Parliament but which nevertheless must be respected if the doctrine of equal treatment is to be maintained.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision 11077
Full Text of Decision 11077
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The Umpire can only grant relief where some error can be found in the decision of the Board. The Umpire cannot correct weaknesses or errors or injustices in legislation. I can only apply the law as prescribed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Decision 10693
Full Text of Decision 10693
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
It is incumbent upon the CEIC and the Board to apply the law. Impressions of unfairness or inequitable application are no authority to the people entrusted with the administration of the statute to change the law. Changes in the law are Parliament's responsibility.
Decision 10230
Full Text of Decision 10230
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
One may well consider deeming reg. 37(5) to be unrealistic and unjust. However, neither the Board nor the Umpire is constituted to be a court of equity and both are obliged simply to apply the law as it is written. [p._8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision A-0373.82
Full Text of Decision A-0373.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Conclusion reached with some reluctance. But this Court, the Umpire, the Board and the Commission must apply the law as it appears that Parliament enacted it, irrespective of the sympathy that the plight of this claimant engenders. [p. 10-11]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision A-0852.81
Full Text of Decision A-0852.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 6 of the 10 weeks required to qualify. The Umpire allowed the case because refusal here would defeat the intent of the legislation although the letter of the law was not met. Error in law. The Interpretation Act does not allow departure from a clear provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision S-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The courts are strictly required to apply the law as written and may not depart from the clear meaning of the provisions enacted by Parliament to give effect to a presumed intention not expressed. [PIGEON J., p.18-19]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A-0392.78
Full Text of Decision A-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The courts are strictly required to apply the law as written and may not depart from the clear meaning of the provisions enacted by Parliament to give effect to a presumed intention not expressed. [PIGEON J., p.18-19]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 38254
Full Text of Decision 38254
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
One of the functions of a Board when faced with contradictory evidence, such as here the Employer's statements vary with those of the claimant, their role and duty is to determine the credibility of the conflicting evidence, and to determine what weight to put upon it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 37863
Full Text of Decision 37863
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
A Board hearing is required to be summary in nature, and the conduct of it must not be confused with hearings in civil or criminal tribunals, Employment Standards Act or the Human Rights Commission. Evidence is not given under oath and while witnesses may be heard there is little opportunity for examination or cross-exmination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 26306
Full Text of Decision 26306
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Boards were established to allow for a quick and informal resolution of disputes between claimants and the Commission. This purpose would be defeated if a party was not allowed to have the referees go back and deal with an issue which they had neglected to address in the first decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Decision 20783
Full Text of Decision 20783
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Boards sitting on appeals are required to act as independent, impartial tribunals. The proceeding is appellate in nature and must never be permitted to degenerate into something akin to an inquisitorial process. Boards are generally masters of their own procedure.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 18611
Full Text of Decision 18611
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0897.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Decision A-0897.90
Full Text of Decision A-0897.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Although a Board of Referees is not composed of ad hoc representatives of labour, management and the public but is rather drawn from a nominated panel, it is nevertheless evident that it is far from a truly "professional" tribunal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Decision 18130
Full Text of Decision 18130
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
The Board did not abandon its role as adjudicator in conducting what she refers to as an "adversarial cross-examination". I have read the transcript. Members were only asking questions to enable them to understand her position. This is a practice regularly indulged in by judges.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 17292
Full Text of Decision 17292
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Availability is a question of fact. Members of Boards are not legal experts but people drawn from the community who are expected to make a common sense judgment. When they do, their assessment of who to believe, or what is reasonable, ought not to be overturned lightly.
Decision 16824
Full Text of Decision 16824
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Claimant refers to matters that Board should have "checked". The Board does not possess investigatory power. Claimant must use best efforts to secure evidence to support his allegations. Commission's duty to fairly present evidence. Board's function to assess evidence presented.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 16222
Full Text of Decision 16222
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Not a trial in the nature of the normal criminal or civil process of courts. The Board's task is to assess, on the basis of information available to the Commission at time of its decision and such further explanation as claimant may provide, whether thedecision should be varied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Decision 14551
Full Text of Decision 14551
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Boards are quasi-judicial bodies who have to make administrative decisions or rulings in matters pertaining to appeals under the UI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 14375
Full Text of Decision 14375
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Whether a claimant is available is a question of fact. Because members of Boards are not legal experts but are people drawn from the community, they are in a better position than the Umpire to make this sort of determination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 13630
Full Text of Decision 13630
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
Members of Boards are not legal experts. They are members of the community who make their decisions based on experience and common sense. Context: penalty.
Decision 12953
Full Text of Decision 12953
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
The composition of Boards and nature of proceedings place them in a better position than the Umpire to decide on a question of fact. Members of Board are not legal experts, but expected to rely on own knowledge of community and common sense.
Decision 12181
Full Text of Decision 12181
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
It is clear that in meeting to hear the appeal, the Board was carrying out one of the principal duties assigned to it by the Act and therefore acting in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Decision 11023
Full Text of Decision 11023
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Summary:
The appeal provisions of s.80 are somewhat limited, the intention of Parliament being to make the Board the final arbiter of facts so long as the statutory provisions of the insurance scheme are respected.
Decision 62912A
Full Text of Decision 62912A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Following receipt of the Board's decision, the claimant submitted a request to have the Board reconsider its decision. He provided additional evidence in regard to his bank deposits. The Umpire stated that the Commission should have sent the claimant's request for a review of its decision to the Board and have the Board determine whether the new evidence presented by the claimant warranted a reconsideration. He referred the matter back.
Decision T-0370.95
Full Text of Decision T-0370.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Mandamus filed to force the Commission to have the BOR's refusal to extend the time to appeal reconsidered. A BOR recommendation is not binding on the Commission and a decision on a recommendation cannot be appealed before the BOR.
Decision 20765
Full Text of Decision 20765
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Some time after the decision, the employer asked that a rehearing be scheduled so as to allow him to make submissions. The Chairman refused the request on the grounds that proper notification had been delivered. No grounds exist which would justify the interference of an Umpire.
Decision 19840
Full Text of Decision 19840
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Notice of hearing by Board received by claimant after hearing. In such a case, an offer for a re-hearing should make it clear that the claimant will have the option to have the matter re-heard by the same or a newly constituted Board. Choice given here was same Board or Umpire.
Decision 18856
Full Text of Decision 18856
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Asks the Board to review its decision and provides supporting documents: job search and financial statements. The evidence she is now seeking to introduce does not constitute in any way new facts of which she was unaware at that time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 14385
Full Text of Decision 14385
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Whatever the reasons for the first Board's decision, once a claimant requests and obtains a rehearing he puts the whole appeal in issue once again and it was open to the second Board to reach its own conclusions on the evidence as presented to it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 11826
Full Text of Decision 11826
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
The Commission had every opportunity at the hearing to present all the evidence. It chose not to produce the affidavit. I see no reason to refer the matter back for rehearing in order to provide the Commission with another opportunity to do what it could have done.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
confidential information |
|
|
Decision 11800
Full Text of Decision 11800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Summary:
Insured was successful at board; employer requested new hearing; according to insured, employer should have appealed to Umpire and board cannot rehear case under s. 86. I do not agree. Up to board to decide whether there are are new facts.
Decision 65454
Full Text of Decision 65454
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees stated the employer failed attend the hearing and, therefore, it could not accept the documentary evidence on file. The Umpire indicated this is wrong in law. Documentary evidence is admissible, and indeed must be considered and carefully weighed by the Board, unless it has good reasons to exclude it, but it has to state its reasons for doing so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
improper language |
|
|
Decision 34749
Full Text of Decision 34749
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
Boards actions of not accepting evidence or returning evidence to claimant, not making it part of the record, can lead to a decision being invalid because a breach of natural justice has occurred. Failure to do so however did not materially affect the outcome of the case.
Decision 26300A
Full Text of Decision 26300A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
The Board asked the Commission to send it the record of employment. The Commission refused indicating that the Board could not force it to file a document. References to CUB 21911 and A-78-89; deemed unnecessary for the Commission to file additional evidence.
Decision 22905
Full Text of Decision 22905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
When a claimant tenders evidence (12 photographs) to a Board, the Board has an obligation to take it under consideration and make it part of the record. The Board should not be selecting from evidence which a claimant submits and keep only the part (2 photographs) which suits it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 21921
Full Text of Decision 21921
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
Boards should not refuse to file evidence which claimants ask to file. They may feel that the evidence tendered is not relevant. Then it is far wiser to file the material and then assess whether they will give it much weight. Otherwise there is ground for quashing the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
Decision 21911
Full Text of Decision 21911
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees, an administrative tribunal, derives its powers solely from the Act and the Regulations.
The Board requested that the Commission provide the complete statement, portions of which (dealing with other people) were blacked out. Nothing in the Act, nor in the Regulations authorizes the Board to obtain evidence by compulsion from the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Decision 20905
Full Text of Decision 20905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
Whether an Umpire or Board has the authority to compel the production of information from third parties or even from the CEIC is not important since failure to produce the requested information can lead to a negative inference being drawn with respect to the quality of the evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Decision 20829
Full Text of Decision 20829
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
Not having the necessary equipment to play it, the Board refused in a case of misconduct to accept as evidence a tape of disciplinary interview that claimant wanted to produce as well as a transcript of it. Strict rules of evidence not to be followed. Amatter of discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
union activities |
|
|
Decision A0522.08
Full Text of Decision A0522.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
weigh evidence * |
|
Summary:
The FCA indicated that the BOR properly determined that it had no jurisdiction to order the Commission to write off the overpayments. It also noted that the BOR committed no legal error in declining to place the onus of proof of the overpayments on the Commission since the decision taken by the Commission creates a debt which becomes executory against the applicant as soon as he/she is notified of the amount to be repaid. As a result, if an applicant appeals a Notice of Debt, he/she bears tho onus of demonstrating the inaccuracy of the amount specified. Similar cases: A0523.08, A0526.08, A0527.08 and A0528.08.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Decision A0548.07
Full Text of Decision A0548.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
weigh evidence * |
|
Summary:
The BOR concluded that the claimant was not entitled to benefits under the EIA because he was self-employed within the meaning of section 30(1) of the EIR during the benefit period. The BOR also upheld the assessment of a penalty under section 38 of the EIA for providing false and misleading information and maintained a notice of a very serious violation under section 7.1 of the EIA. The FCA ruled that it was not open to the Umpire nor is it open to the FCA to substitute findings of fact unless the claimant could demonstrate that the BOR's findings were made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it.
