Decision 63061
Full Text of Decision 63061
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Due to the Board of Referees' failure to meet the requirements of subsection 114(3) of the Act - providing written reasons for their decision - the matter is referred back to a newly constituted Board.
Decision 51676
Full Text of Decision 51676
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Decided that the claimant's testimony was in flagrant contradiction with the facts in the file and that the members of the BOR did not explain why they accepted the testimony. Since this question was not answered, the matter is sent to a new BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 38185
Full Text of Decision 38185
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Board of Referees said almost nothing with regard to its perception of the claimant's credibility and its assessment of the evidence in terms of availability. The lack of a statement of the findings of the Board of Referees on questions of fact material to the decision therefore constitutes an error in law under sections 79 and 80 of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 34680
Full Text of Decision 34680
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board failed to reveal relevant facts, or the reasoning on which it based its decision, as required by the jurisprudence. The case was referred to a new board, so that a clear, well-reasoned decision could be rendered, after the evidence brought forward by beneficiary and employer had been properly weighed.
Decision 25392
Full Text of Decision 25392
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
It is regrettable that further delay and expense must be incurred but the Board, as is too often the case, has ignored its responsibility to focus on all the evidence and state its finding of fact. Until some systemic reforms are provided, such references back and rehearings will have to be ordered.
Decision 24192
Full Text of Decision 24192
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Quoted with approval: It is necessary that losing parties be satisfied that they have been fairly dealt with, that their position has been understood, and that it has been properly considered. It is important that the reasons for a decision be stated in a language that the party can comprehend.
Decision 24189
Full Text of Decision 24189
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board does not refer specifically to which statements were contradictory. The reason why it found claimant not credible is not apparent. When a tribunal makes a negative credibility finding, it has an obligation to give at least a few examples of the inconsistencies or contradictions.
Decision 22082
Full Text of Decision 22082
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
It is well established that a Board commits an error in law when it simply echoes the determination of the Commission or states a bare opinion upholding the same without making any findings of fact material to its decision. I find that to be the case here.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 21690
Full Text of Decision 21690
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Unfortunately, as is all too common with Board decisions, the Board simply summarizes or paraphrases documents and statements provided to it and then suddenly states a conclusion without any statement as to its findings of fact material to that conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 18878A
Full Text of Decision 18878A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
A serious error which nullifies the decision of the Board: the decision contains 5 paragraphs, the first 4 of which are purely and simply plagiarized from the observations of CEIC; the final paragraph is just the conclusion. Unacceptable in view of subsection 79(2) since the Board must draw its own conclusions.
Decision 19228
Full Text of Decision 19228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board should list those facts on which it relies for its decision and preferably indicate where in the evidence, these facts are found. Put another way, the Board should single out for description those facts which led it to come to one conclusion rather than another.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 18145
Full Text of Decision 18145
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Umpire must intervene where either the reasons given by the Board as a basis for its decision do not demonstrate how the Board arrived at its conclusion or where it seems on the face of the record that the Board has relied on facts that were not before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
rationale |
|
|
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 17955
Full Text of Decision 17955
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
One must bear in mind the purpose the legislator intended by imposing Section 79(2) obligations on the Board. This is simply to ensure that both parties, which both have the right of evocation before an umpire, have some basis that allows them to justify the reasons for appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Decision 17329
Full Text of Decision 17329
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The decision of the Board manifestly fails to comply with ss.79(2). The Board merely found the penalties imposed were in order, but listed no facts on which it relied in reaching this decision. Failure to comply with ss.79(2) constitutes an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 17193
Full Text of Decision 17193
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Ss.79(2) means that the Board is required to set out in its decision a description of the facts on which it bases its decision, the facts which led it to make the decision which was arrived at. A general reference to having made a thorough study of the file is not sufficient.
Decision 16648A
Full Text of Decision 16648A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
While accepting that the Commission was correct in its calculation, the Board states no evidence upon which it has reached that conclusion. Such failure is an error of law and gives rise to an inference that the Board did not have regard to material before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 16276
Full Text of Decision 16276
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
In a totally inadequate decision, the Board dismissed claimant's appeal. It is incredible that a Board which is appointed to make decisions simply dismisses an appeal by stating: "The Board finds no jurisprudence covering this case and agrees with the Commission's decision."
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
exemption clause |
|
Decision 15338
Full Text of Decision 15338
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision provides only limited information as to findings of fact, so I am unable to determine whether claimant's job search and Union-Commission agreement regarding job search were considered. Inadequacy of record of decision amounts to error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 14987
Full Text of Decision 14987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Not enough for Board to say that they reviewed the evidence and heard claimant. They must say what facts they are finding, what facts they accepted and what facts they rejected. A long line of CUBs saying that this does not comply with ss.79(2). Referred back to a new Board.
Decision 14841
Full Text of Decision 14841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Ss.79(2) not met. As claimant's representative stated, there is no way of knowing whether the Board believed the facts as stated by claimant and decided these did not amount to good cause, or whether they disbelieved him but would have found good cause if facts had been proven.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Decision 14813
Full Text of Decision 14813
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board merely found that his reasons for delay in making a claim do not suffice. Ss.79(2) not met. I do not know whether the Board simply did not believe him, or whether they believed him, but decided that the facts as explained by him did not constitute good cause. [p. 2]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Decision 14686
Full Text of Decision 14686
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board said that after reviewing the file it was unanimous that claimant left his job without just cause. The Board did not comply with ss.79(2) since there is no statement of findings in this decision. Decision might well be set aside on this ground.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
Decision 14631
Full Text of Decision 14631
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The spirit and letter of section 79(2) is not respected as the decision simply states that the issue was discussed at length with the claimant and that there is no other alternative than to maintain the decision of the official. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
Decision 14486
Full Text of Decision 14486
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Board decision not in compliance with either the letter or the spirit of section 79(2): no statement of conclusions and limited to stating that there was an examination of the file and no new facts. Impossible to determine whether the assessment or application of the facts is erroneous.
Decision 14398
Full Text of Decision 14398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in not complying with ss.79(2). The finding, "decision based according to facts in appeal docket", is patently absurd because those "facts" do not necessarily point to any decision, some being mutually contradictory.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 14274
Full Text of Decision 14274
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board stated "After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds no reason to change decision" and erred in law. Issue: misconduct and voluntary leaving. Blatant neglect of Board's duty to state findings of fact. Referred back to Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 14120
Full Text of Decision 14120
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
A simple statement that the Insurance Officer's decision is correct, without giving any details whatsoever, is not a finding of fact as required by the Act. Case returned to Board.
Decision 13851
Full Text of Decision 13851
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
What is required by ss.79(2) is a statement of facts that are relevant to the decision the Board came to; the facts which led the Board to reach the decision it did. A fairly complete examination of this can be found in Pacific Western Airlines.
Decision 13852
Full Text of Decision 13852
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
A statement that "The Board carefully examined all information available" is useless. Two purposes served by ss.79(2): enable a reviewing body to know the basis of the decision and give assurance to claimant that he was listened to and understood. [p. 7]
Decision 13799
Full Text of Decision 13799
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision does not meet ss. 79(2). It merely sets out the arguments of the two parties and reaches a decision without providing either findings of fact or reasons on which the decision is based. We are not told on what basis payments are earnings.
Decision 10984A
Full Text of Decision 10984A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Board simply recounted numerous facts, most contradictory, without indicating which it intended to rely on to justify its finding, and the reason.
Decision 12729
Full Text of Decision 12729
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Not a single reason given to allow claimant to understand why decision upheld, which is very important for claimants. If reasons were given, there would probably be many less appeals to the Umpire.
Decision 12718
Full Text of Decision 12718
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Insufficient to simply state that the Board is not convinced without giving some relevant reasons. Claimant is entitled to know why reasons given are not good cause for delay. Justice not only to be done but be perceived to have been done.
Decision 12093
Full Text of Decision 12093
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Claimants are entitled to have some reasoning from the referees and not just an assertion of the difficulties of their task followed by an abrupt adoption of the Commission's position.
Decision 11737
Full Text of Decision 11737
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Statement of findings not clear enough to understand reason for decision. Role of board is to decide whether explanation satisfactory: did insured intend to say that he was available only in region or that he was not available at all?
Decision 11423
Full Text of Decision 11423
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Ss.79(2) not met. The fact that a case has been well documented and researched by the Commission does not mean that the decision is correct. Referred back to Board.
Decision 11325
Full Text of Decision 11325
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Decision of board did not include statement of findings, so it was impossible for Umpire to perform true role and properly consider whether board erred. Case referred back to board.
Decision 11312
Full Text of Decision 11312
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board said, "His weeks were only 7 despite his contention that he has 8". Boards should provide more comprehensive information, for example why did he only get credit for 7 weeks when he says he has 8. More details required for those who read these reasons.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
number of weeks |
maximum |
Decision 11104
Full Text of Decision 11104
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The decision merely states the Board's conclusion. It does not contain a statement of facts. There are no transcripts kept of the Board proceeding. The only way of knowing what went on is through one who attended, here the claimant.
Decision 11050
Full Text of Decision 11050
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Failure to comply with the requirements of ss.79(2) will result in the Board's decision being set aside and a re-hearing ordered.
Decision 10945
Full Text of Decision 10945
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
To say that board finds that CEIC decisions are correct complies with neither letter nor spirit of subs. 79(2); no statement of findings on material facts. Judge may not perform true role. Referred back to board.
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 |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
Having stated their finding on the central question of fact material to their decision, the Board was not strictly required also to state findings on all of the constituent subquestions. [p. 6]
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 |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0001.81
Full Text of Decision A-0001.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board was bound by ss.79(2) and its decision does not comply with this. It does not state the findings of Board on questions of fact that had to be resolved but merely asserts that the Insurance Officer was justified to act as he did.
Decision A-0521.77
Full Text of Decision A-0521.77
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
It seemed, contrary to ss. 79(2), that the Board of Referees failed to consider the evidence of the steps taken by the claimant to look for work and to decide on whether these steps were sufficient. Therefore, the BOR acted illegally. Case sent back to the BOR for a decision on all the issues.
Decision 24965
Full Text of Decision 24965
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The decision simply summarizes some of the evidence reviewed by the Board. That summary does not amount to findings of fact. A finding involves a decision after weighing the evidence. It is impossible to know what opinion the Board formed of the conflicting evidence. This is a serious error of law.
Decision 23053
Full Text of Decision 23053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The Board must state which facts led it to decide as it did. The Board, in writing a decision, should approach the task with a view to explaining to someone who was not at the hearing why it rejected some evidence but relied on other. As I cannot be certain on what facts it relied, decision quashed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from representative |
|
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 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 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 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 |
|
|
