Summary of Issue: Not To Be Read Strictly


Decision A-0195.97 Full Text of Decision A-0195.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
board of referees errors in law statement of facts required
penalties knowingly
penalties clear and simple language

Decision 18611 Full Text of Decision 18611

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
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 jurisdiction reason for existence of boards

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 statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Disbelief of evidence that is inherently improbable because of its special characteristics may be said to speak for itself and not to require explanation, particularly by a non-specialist tribunal. Claimant's search for work while he was otherwise occupied in a venture found improbable.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties proof
board of referees jurisdiction reason for existence of boards

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

It is clear that the jurisprudence requires that Umpires not read decisions of Boards "microscopically", with a view to searching out every possible error or uncertainty therein. See MATHEODAKIS.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties misinformation from commission
penalties proof
board of referees weight of statements under oath
board of referees weight of statements credibility
penalties proof need for an explanation
board of referees jurisdiction assess credibility duty

Decision 17955 Full Text of Decision 17955

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Arbitration awards are not to be subject to microscopic analysis with scrupulous rules of interpretation in an effort to find some way to reverse it. The role of the umpire is to examine the case in the context of the file as a whole.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts as a requirement

Decision 17186 Full Text of Decision 17186

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

It is recognized that Board decisions should not be examined microscopically. Board members are not usually legally trained. But the decision should contain enough of an exposition to enable an Umpire to be satisfied that the correct legal standard was applied.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires jurisdiction oral evidence

Decision 14851A Full Text of Decision 14851A

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

The consideration the Board gave to claimant's submission, her unwillingness to leave the course and the policy of the Law Society adequately expresses the basis of the decision. As stated in ROBERTS, clear legal reasoning is not expected in the contextof decisions of a Board.

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 purpose of the legislation
availability for work courses time required for studies

Decision 14844 Full Text of Decision 14844

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

On the authority of Supreme Court in JACMAIN, a decision of such tribunals as a Board need not be examined microscopically in order to find some flaw in the text or deficiency in its construction. It is sufficient if decision expresses gist of reasoning.


Decision 13914 Full Text of Decision 13914

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

According to ROBERTS, hearings are an informal process for purpose of solving problems of ordinary people; reasons for decision should not be held under microscope.


Decision 13153 Full Text of Decision 13153

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Boards are not usually composed of persons with legal training. It is clear that decisions made by Boards should not be read microscopically. Context: penalty.


Decision 12845 Full Text of Decision 12845

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Umpire must read between lines. Board's decision not work of an expert jurist or legal drafter in clear style.


Decision 10762 Full Text of Decision 10762

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Statements of board not always following rules of interpretation. Cannot allow one's self to dissect each word and analyse each comma to try to find a technical error. Members of board are not legislative drafters. Decision must be read as a whole.


Decision A-0595.84 Full Text of Decision A-0595.84

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

Hearings before Boards and Board decisions are intended to be an informal process for resolving the problems of ordinary people. Decisions not to be read microscopically, see BOULIS. Use of word "appeal" in s.80 is a good indication. [p._6-7]

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires grounds of appeal not a trial de novo
umpires grounds of appeal natural justice and error in law or in fact
umpires grounds of appeal capricious finding meaning
board of referees statement of facts as a requirement

Decision A-0889.77 Full Text of Decision A-0889.77

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
Summary:

By confirming the CEIC’s decision in exhibits 4 and 5, the Board of Referees accepted the conclusion that the claimant left work voluntarily to go to school. Requirements of ss. 79(2) met even if no mention of medical certificate. Not essential that the evidence be analysed and discussed.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts disqualification and disentitlement
Date modified: