Decision A-0096.98
Full Text of Decision A-0096.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Case identical to A-0095.98. See indexed summary.
Decision A-0096-98
Full Text of Decision A-0096-98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0095.98
Decision A-0095.98
Full Text of Decision A-0095.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
The FCA ruled that the question at issue, namely lack of notification of the amount of the overpayment, could not be brought before the Umpire because it had never been raised before the BOR. This decision reiterates the position taken by the FCA in Girard (A-6-97).
Decision 39943
Full Text of Decision 39943
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0095.98
Decision 39942
Full Text of Decision 39942
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0095.98
Decision A-0931.96
Full Text of Decision A-0931.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Umpire declared the creation of the overpayment wrongful because it did not meet the requirements of subsection 43(1) of the Act and wrote off the amount. On the same grounds as those outlined in Girard (A-6-97), the FCA allowed the Commission's application for judicial review, reversed the Umpire's decision and ordered that the BOR decision upholding the Commission's determination be maintained.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0006.97
Full Text of Decision A-0006.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
In its comments on the Umpire's decision to write off the amount of the overpayment, based on her finding that the Commission's decision was wrongful because it did not comply with subsection 43(1) of the Act, the FCA ruled that the Umpire could not take responsibility for deciding whether the requirements of subsection 43(1) of the Act had been met, since the question was not before her and had not been raised before the BOR. With respect to the matter of the requirements in subsection 43(1), the FCA referred to Brien (A-425-96) and Rajotte (A-426-96).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to recover |
|
Decision S-0070.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law. He directed his mind to a matter not under appeal before the Board nor before him, namely the correctness of the CEIC's decision not to refer claimant to another training course; a decision, in any event, not reviewable on appeal. Leave to appeal dismissed by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discretionary power |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
benefit period extended |
imprisonment |
|
Decision A-0492.94
Full Text of Decision A-0492.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Left her job to take a course. Once before the Board, she abandoned her appeal on availability. Claim allowed by Umpire from the termination date of the course. The Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by dealing with a question that had been withdrawn from the Board and therefore was not before him.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length indefinite |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
employment defined |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Decision A-0284.94
Full Text of Decision A-0284.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Claimant not eligible for UI under 14(b). This matter is not to be reconsidered on the basis that both the Board and the Umpire neglected to consider whether he was capable and available under 14(a). That question was not raised with the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
meaning of incapable |
|
|
Decision 24383
Full Text of Decision 24383
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0284.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
meaning of incapable |
|
|
Decision 24649
Full Text of Decision 24649
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
The Commission's appeal is based on the fact the Board reduced the disqualification to 3 weeks. Before the Umpire, the claimant was seeking a review of the misconduct issue. Since claimant has failed to appeal that aspect of the decision in the prescribed time, I do not have jurisdiction to decide this matter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision A-0371.93
Full Text of Decision A-0371.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Issue of antedating raised before the Board, but there was no such request before the CEIC. The Umpire erred in holding that, although there may not have been an express request, the CEIC implicitly dealt with the issue since it had to determine the commencement date of the benefit period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
a requirement |
|
| antedate |
applicability |
implicit request |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Decision A-0070.94
Full Text of Decision A-0070.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law. He directed his mind to a matter not under appeal before the Board nor before him, namely the correctness of the CEIC's decision not to refer claimant to another training course; a decision, in any event, not reviewable on appeal. Leave to appeal dismissed by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discretionary power |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
benefit period extended |
imprisonment |
|
Decision 21932
Full Text of Decision 21932
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Disqualification reduced to 6 weeks by Board appealed by CEIC to Umpire. Claimant inquired if he could address the Board's finding as to his loss of employment due to misconduct. The CEIC objected. As he has not filed an appeal, I am unable to hear submissions on this matter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
| umpires |
right of appeal |
delay in scheduling hearing |
|
Decision 14707
Full Text of Decision 14707
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
The Umpire is empowered only to hear appeals of Board decisions and the Board may only hear matters which are referred to it within the prescribed time. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 14115
Full Text of Decision 14115
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Issues: earnings and penalty. The issue of availability is one of the more crucial and important aspects of this file and nowhere was this matter addressed either by the Commission or the Board. I further urge the parties to address the issue of availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
corporate body |
|
Decision 14046
Full Text of Decision 14046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
While evident that this was not a case of voluntary leaving, so that the 3-week disqualification would probably be reversed on appeal, no such appeal was made in time and s.79 leaves the responsibility of an extension to the Commission which has refused. The Umpire cannot intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and earnings |
|
|
Decision 11920A
Full Text of Decision 11920A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Decision of board must necessarily exist before Umpire has jurisdiction to hear appeal. I have no board decision before me dealing with end of work stoppage. Consent of parties not sufficient.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Decision 12756
Full Text of Decision 12756
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
Claimant says for the first time that he wants his claim antedated from 1985 to 1980. That issue was not dealt with by the Commission nor argued before the Board. Hence, I find myself unable to address this issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 12257
Full Text of Decision 12257
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Summary:
The Commission suggests that it could be argued that reg. 43 applies instead of 44. This however is irrelevant because this appeal is not a trial de novo.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
applicability |
|
|
