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 |
|
|
