Decision A0144.09
Full Text of Decision A0144.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
|
Summary:
The claimant made seven false or misleading representations claiming he had not worked nor earned income over a fourteen week period from January 2006 to April 2006. The Commission imposed a penalty under s. 38(1) of the EIA and issued a notice of a serious violation under s. 7.1 of the EIA. The BOR upheld the decision of the Commission. The Umpire allowed the appeal, deciding that the Commission was precluded from assessing a penalty under s. 38 of the EIA because it had made no ruling on an allocation of earnings. Furthermore, the Umpire held that he had no jurisdiction to consider the matter of an allocation. The FCA ruled that the Umpire seized himself of an issue that was not before him and that an allocation of earnings is not a precondition to the imposition of a penalty under s. 38(1) of the EIA.
Decision 26895
Full Text of Decision 26895
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board's task was to weigh the evidence and they chose to accept that of the claimant in preference to that of her employer. In doing so, it carried out the duty which was incumbent upon it to perform. It was neither a capricious nor perverse finding in light of the evidence they had heard.
Decision 26859
Full Text of Decision 26859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board placed undue reliance on claimant's friend when it concluded that claimant was willing to abandon the course. It cost $3,500 for each of 3 sessions; in the absence of evidence about a refund policy, it was perverse for the Board to accept this based only on the credibility of claimant's friend.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
factors to consider |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
substantial fees paid |
|
Decision 23503
Full Text of Decision 23503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0728.93
Decision A-0728.93
Full Text of Decision A-0728.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
We agree firstly that the Board of Referees based its decision on irrelevant considerations and secondly, that the claimant has not proven that she was unemployed; the Umpire committed no error which would permit us to intervene.
Decision A-0640.93
Full Text of Decision A-0640.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire substituted the Board's view of the facts for his own without asking himself whether there was evidence in the record before the Board to support its conclusion and without first finding that the Board had erred in principle in reaching its conclusion. See McCARTHY.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision 23101
Full Text of Decision 23101
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0640.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision A-0115.94
Full Text of Decision A-0115.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is evident from the Board's decision that both the majority and minority view had been canvassed. Although the majority could have ruled otherwise, they chose to disbelieve claimant as to the cause for leaving his employment. The Umpire could not substitute the opinion of the majority for hers.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 24013
Full Text of Decision 24013
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0115.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 25193
Full Text of Decision 25193
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board's decision was made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard to the material before it. It failed to indicate why it did not accept what the doctor stated as to the period of claimant's incapacity, and nor did it speak of the claimant's admission that he is incapable of working.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
incapacity |
Decision 23769
Full Text of Decision 23769
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
There is no evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that the vacation monies were held in trust by the employer for the claimant. Absent such evidence, I find that the Board based its decision on a capricious finding of fact. That being the case, the decision of the Board cannot stand.
Decision 21933
Full Text of Decision 21933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Finding the claimant unavailable for the whole period is not supported by the evidence and is flatly contradicted by one exhibit. A finding that she was unavailable during the whole period is perverse in the face of her application to a specific employer for full-time work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Decision 19780
Full Text of Decision 19780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Electrician sharing his job, 9 weeks at work and 9 weeks off. Claimant has stated that he did not carry out a job search. In light of this, the Board's implicit finding that he had proved his availability is capricious and should be overturned. [p._11]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
sharing employment |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 17461
Full Text of Decision 17461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
A waitress was asked to dress less decently. In the view of the Board, she was justified in leaving under the Charter. An absurd finding since she continued to work 8 hours a week at the same location.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
ethical considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
reduction in hours |
|
Decision 17352
Full Text of Decision 17352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board found that job opportunities were unduly limited and that the wage rate requested was not realistic. However, there is nothing in the file to support such a finding of the facts, which therefore seems to me arbitrary.
Decision S-0512.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The tentative agreement was never ratified; it was followed by a lockout until a new agreement with different terms was ratified. It is patently absurd to say, as the Board did, that the tentative agreement brought to an end the labour dispute. Leave to appeal dismissed by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0148.88
Full Text of Decision A-0148.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire was justified in intervening since the Board's decision was clearly based on a perverse finding of fact, namely that the parties had postponed the observance of a plant holiday to a day the plant was closed and which was, moreover, a Sunday.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision 14671
Full Text of Decision 14671
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0148.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision A-0770.87
Full Text of Decision A-0770.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire decided that the Board's finding was capricious and perverse. Since there was clearly evidence supporting the conclusion of the Board, the Umpire could not, under 80(c), substitute his judgment of the facts anymore than this Court under 28(1)(c).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 14045
Full Text of Decision 14045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0770.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 12814
Full Text of Decision 12814
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is not enough that the Board may have based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact. It can do that, according to the law, with impunity. To be set aside, the finding must be one made in a perverse or capricious manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Decision A-0770.85
Full Text of Decision A-0770.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
A misinterpretation of the facts by a Board does not necessarily establish a ground of appeal. An erroneous finding of fact is sufficient only if made in a perverse or capricious manner, said the Umpire [p.7]. There is no basis on which this Court couldproperly intervene with the Umpire's decision.
Decision A-0825.85
Full Text of Decision A-0825.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Determining the termination date of a course is a question of fact. Under 80(c), the Umpire could only review such a finding of fact if it was erroneous, perverse or capricious. Nothing in the record shows that this condition had been met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
duration |
|
Decision 11324
Full Text of Decision 11324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0825.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
duration |
|
Decision 11836
Full Text of Decision 11836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0186.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0186.86
Full Text of Decision A-0186.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
An Umpire may not review a finding of fact by a Board unless that finding was erroneous and made in a perverse or capricious manner. Clearly, even if the findings of fact may be questioned, it cannot be said that they are erroneous, not to mention perverse or capricious.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-1203.84
Full Text of Decision A-1203.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Record contained evidence on which board could reasonably have made these findings of fact; whether or not they were theoretically sound, the possibility that they could have been given a different reading would not allow Umpire to substitute his opinion for the board's.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Decision A-0595.84
Full Text of Decision A-0595.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Not allowed to reverse a finding of fact even if against the weight of evidence. The proper test is whether there was any evidence upon which the Board could have found as it did or whether it made any mistake of principle. [p. 5-6]
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 |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0020.82
Full Text of Decision A-0020.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire would have reversed the Board's decision merely because other decisions of Boards were not appealed by the CEIC. They were made by Boards differently constituted on the particular facts before them. No support for a conclusion that the decision was made capriciously.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0258.81
Full Text of Decision A-0258.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is the finding of fact of the Board that is put into question. Such an attack is not admissible if based on mere suppositions, conjectures or possibilities and not on any clear evidence [p.7] as per Umpire. S.28 application dismissed for the reasons given by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Decision A-0452.81
Full Text of Decision A-0452.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Since the insured brought action against the employer for injury to reputation and received $2,000 for withdrawing the grievance, and not as salary, that sum is not equivalent to earnings, according to the Umpire. Capricious finding that may not reasonably be made from the record, according to the Court.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A0340.08
Full Text of Decision A0340.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
In this decision, the claimant wished to antedate his initial claim. The FCA decided to send the matter back to the Office of the Umpire with instructions that the claimant has not established proper motives to justify the delay in submitting his initial claim. The FCA reaffirmed the principle that an Umpire cannot intervene with respect to a question of fact unless the BOR's decision is unreasonable. In the present case, the Umpire erred as he failed to explain why the BOR's decision was unreasonable. Also, the Umpire committed an error by considering the «shortness of the delay» rather than the reasons to explain such delay.
Decision A-1036.96
Full Text of Decision A-1036.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
FCA found that in overruling the BOR unanimous decision, the Umpire did not observe the limitations the Act places on the Umpire's power of review. The BOR had refused to accept that the claimant's breaches could have constituted misconduct, regardless of the fact that the employer saw them as grounds for dismissal. Umpire could not dismiss the BOR finding simply on the basis of a line of reasoning which, in sum, merely gave greater weight to the employer's views. Claimant's application for judicial review allowed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
| misconduct |
justification |
|
|
Decision 27279
Full Text of Decision 27279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0255.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0255.95
Full Text of Decision A-0255.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
This, whether consciously or not, was a question of fact; the arbitrator could take action only on the assumption that the Board's response, in his view, was abusive, was arbitrary, or failed to take into consideration facts brought to their attention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 26619
Full Text of Decision 26619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0084.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision A-0084.95
Full Text of Decision A-0084.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpire did not identify any reviewable error in reaching his decision to reverse the BOR's decision. He merely disagreed with the factual findings of the Board, something he was not at liberty to do as there was sufficient evidence before the Board uponwhich its decision could be properly based.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 25075
Full Text of Decision 25075
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0480.94
Decision A-0480.94
Full Text of Decision A-0480.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire erred by substituting the Board's conclusions on the facts for his own. The test for an Umpire's jurisdiction to interfere with the Board's findings of fact was stated in ROBERTS. We can find no such error on the part of the Board.
Decision A-0645.94
Full Text of Decision A-0645.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board concluded that claimant had not shown on a balance of probabilities that he had left his employment with just cause. The Umpire, without first making a finding pursuant to 80(c), substituted his own view of the facts for those of the Board. Bydoing so, the Umpire erred in law.
Decision 25797A
Full Text of Decision 25797A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0645.94
Decision 23945
Full Text of Decision 23945
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0087.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision A-0087.94
Full Text of Decision A-0087.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Before the Umpire could make new findings of fact he would have to conclude that the Board's decision must be set aside for reviewable error of fact. This he did not do, but instead proceeded to overrule the Board as if on appeal, substituting his own conclusions of facts based on his observations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision A-0600.93
Full Text of Decision A-0600.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
It is clear that the Umpire substituted the Board's opinion for his own. It is equally clear that he was entitled to do so if and only if he concluded that the claimant had shown that the decision of the Board had been vitiated by one of the grounds enumerated in para. 80(a), (b) and (c) of the Act.
The Umpire fell into error by substituting the Board's views of the facts for his own. Whether the quitting was voluntary or not, the referees had before them the several explanations of the claimant, and this was a conclusion of fact which was open to them on the record.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
Decision 22912
Full Text of Decision 22912
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0600.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
Decision A-1463.92
Full Text of Decision A-1463.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact reached by the Board without finding that its decision was perverse. He gave no reason for arriving at such a conclusion of perversity. The Umpire was wrong in substituting the Board's view of the facts for his own.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 21822
Full Text of Decision 21822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-1463.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 21977
Full Text of Decision 21977
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Before the Board's decision will be set aside, there must be no evidence on which the decision could have been based, a complete disregard of the relevant and credible evidence, or a perverse decision in the sense that no reasonable Board could have come to the conclusion it did.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 21690
Full Text of Decision 21690
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
With respect to any error of fact, I cannot reverse the Board on this ground unless the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact "that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it". Unable to see any such error of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 19043
Full Text of Decision 19043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
After careful examination I can say that I would not have come to the same conclusion. This however is not a ground for setting aside the Board's decision. There was evidence before the Board to reach its conclusion. Under the circumstances I have no authority to set it aside.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision 18132
Full Text of Decision 18132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
This is a borderline case and I might well have decided differently on the facts myself. However the Board had material before it upon which it could decide as it did and it had a full opportunity to hear claimant. It was entitled to come to the conclusion it did.
Decision 16233
Full Text of Decision 16233
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0128.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision A-0128.89
Full Text of Decision A-0128.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
On credibility issues and assessment of facts, an Umpire should not substitute the Board's finding for his own unless it is based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. No comments from FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 17500
Full Text of Decision 17500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
I must confess that claimant impressed me with his explanation and, if I had to make a determination, I might well have found for him. However the hearing before the Umpire is not a de novo hearing but a review of the Board's decision. Not for me to substitute my opinion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 17269
Full Text of Decision 17269
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board considered the claimant available even if he was takng courses. Even if an umpire reached the opposite conclusion, an even though the decision of the Board seems to contradict a large number of precedents, it was within its jurisdiction to make the decision it did.
Decision 16535
Full Text of Decision 16535
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
I do not believe I would have come to the same decision as the Board but that is not the basis on which I must make my decision. There was evidence upon which the Board could have either allowed or dismissed her appeal. There being such evidence, the appeal is dismissed.
Decision 16061
Full Text of Decision 16061
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Claimant's statement that he looked for work while attending full-time courses accepted by the Board. I have absolutely no doubt that I would not have come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, I cannot reach a conclusion that that finding was made in aperverse or capricious manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
incapacity |
Decision 15307
Full Text of Decision 15307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Whether there was a labour dispute is a question of fact, a matter for the Board to decide. It chose to accept the facts as stated by the employer. It is not sufficient that I might have come to a different conclusion, which I would have in this case, claimant's statement being more credible.
Decision 15271
Full Text of Decision 15271
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
I am not convinced that claimant was in fact working in real estate prior to 2-3 but the issue does not turn on convincing me of this. This was a matter of credibility for the Board. The fact I might have come to a different conclusion is of no consequence.
Decision 15270
Full Text of Decision 15270
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The position of an Umpire is not to review the evidence which was before the Board and to determine if he would come to a different conclusion. It is not his function to substitute his judgment for that of the Board. If there was evidence before the Board in support of its decision, it must stand.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Decision 15156
Full Text of Decision 15156
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's finding of fact is to be upheld unless perverse or capricious. The issue before the Umpire is not whether the Commission was correct, or whether the Umpire might have reached a different conclusion from that of the Board. This is not a hearing de novo.
Decision 14835
Full Text of Decision 14835
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Borderline case. The facts available to the Board were such that either conclusion could have been reached. So long as the conclusion is not perverse or capricious, the Umpire cannot intervene, even if the Umpire, on the very same facts, might have reached a different conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
dual self-employment |
|
|
Decision 14248
Full Text of Decision 14248
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's decision must stand unless there was no evidence on which it could have been based, a complete disregard of relevant evidence or a perverse decision in that no reasonable Board could have come to the conclusion it did.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
damages |
|
|
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Decision 14076
Full Text of Decision 14076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's decision on availability could have gone either way. Border-line case. Either way might have been a perfectly valid and binding one and would have been unsassailable on review by Umpire. I might very well have decided in claimant's favour.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 13894
Full Text of Decision 13894
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
At issue is claimant's participation in the labour dispute. I doubt that I would have reached the same conclusion as the Board, and it appears that other Boards came to different conclusions in relation to the same situation. Unable to say that the Board's finding was perverse. [p.7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 13135
Full Text of Decision 13135
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpires do not have jurisdiction to alter decisions given by a Board merely because they disagree with those decisions or would have come to a different conclusion on the facts. There is no doubt that in this case I would have reached a different conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Decision 12358
Full Text of Decision 12358
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
At issue was claimant's availability while attending a course of study. Lest there be any doubt, had I been sitting as a Board I would have, without hesitation, rejected the claimant's appeal. But these are not the tests to be applied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Decision 12202
Full Text of Decision 12202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Issue was assessment of facts. May very well be that another board would have found for claimant. I admit that the opposite conclusion would have been as unassailable as this. I could not intervene either way.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Decision 12107
Full Text of Decision 12107
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Tribunal composed of Umpire not appellate court in traditional sense; rather, court supervising decisions of board. Umpire must not substitute his opinion for that of board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
reasonable period of time |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
type of work |
|
Decision 11689
Full Text of Decision 11689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Having regard to the evidence which the Board had before it at the time of its decision, although I might have come to an entirely different conclusion, I cannot find that their findings of fact were made in a perverse or capricious manner.
Decision 11078
Full Text of Decision 11078
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's decision is not unanimous nor would I necessarily have come to same conclusion as did the majority. It is not possible to say that the decision was perverse or capricious. Whether I would have made the same finding of fact is irrelevant.
Decision 10930
Full Text of Decision 10930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
This Issue is finding of fact made by board: voluntarily left without just cause. Not impossible that I or others would have decided differently but under s. 80 this finding cannot be reversed unless it is perverse.
Decision A-0103.84
Full Text of Decision A-0103.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board found as a fact that the net settlement was not for loss of earnings but was for loss of reputation. The Umpire erred in reversing its decision and in effect rejecting its finding of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A-0439.83
Full Text of Decision A-0439.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpire cannot substitute own opinion for board's in deciding whether, in fact, claimant was dismissed as result of own misconduct.
Decision A-1174.82
Full Text of Decision A-1174.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Evidence highly conflicting as to whether claimant worked. The Board found that he did, so he qualified for benefits. The Umpire refused to intervene. Question of fact and credibility. The Umpire did not err in not interfering with the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0429.83
Full Text of Decision A-0429.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpire could not substitute his own opinion concerning assessment of facts [relating to misconduct] for that of board unless there was an erroneous finding of fact made in perverse or capricious manner.
Decision A-0020.82
Full Text of Decision A-0020.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
As the wording of s.80 follows very closely that of ss.28(1) of the Federal Court Act, assistance can be obtained from the jurisprudence on the latter. It has been firmly established that the Court is not entitled to substitute its view of the facts of a case for that of the Tribunal. [p.4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0074.81
Full Text of Decision A-0074.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire may not set aside the decision of the board holding the reason given by the insured to justify delay in filing his claim to be invalid, simply because he has a different opinion.
Decision A-0075.81
Full Text of Decision A-0075.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire may not substitute his own opinion for that of the board on the issue of proof of availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
