Decision A0422.10
Full Text of Decision A0422.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his job with Norson Construction due to a work-shortage. Subsequently, the claimant found work at Peak Construction, but left this position after 24 hours. The Commission concluded that the claimant left his employment with Peak voluntarily and without just cause. The Board concluded that the claimant did not provide just cause for leaving his employment with Peak. More particularly, the Board preferred the employer’s evidence that although the claimant had been instructed by his employer to go home on the afternoon of March 13, 2009, for safety reasons, he had clearly been told to report for work the following day. The FCA held that the Umpire erred in finding that the BOR had considered irrelevant statements. Further, the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the Commission to decide the Norson claim and receive a new application from the claimant in regard to his employment with Peak.
Decision A0341.08
Full Text of Decision A0341.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The FCA determined that the Umpire substituted his own discretion for that of the Commission and exceeded his jurisdiction. The Umpire could not interfere with the quantum of the penalty unless it could be shown that the Commission exercised its discretion in a non-judicial manner or acted in a perverse or capricious manner.
Decision A-0191.05
Full Text of Decision A-0191.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Court held that the authority to strike, write off or extinguish a debt does not fall within the jurisdiction of an Umpire hearing a claimant's appeal from a decision of the Board of Referees upholding the Commission's allocation of earnings.
Decision A-0619.04
Full Text of Decision A-0619.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Umpire should not have intervened. The BOR had concluded that the claimant was not "actively seeking employment" while being enrolled in a course of instruction and their decision was supported by the evidence.
Decision A-0387.04
Full Text of Decision A-0387.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The BOR found that the claimant left her employment without just cause. The Umpire determined, that the claimant had just cause to leave her employment, pursuant to paragraph 29(c)(vii) of the EIA. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the decision of the BOR was reasonable and supported by the evidence and that the Umpire could not intervene.
Decision A-0396.04
Full Text of Decision A-0396.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire had held that the seven false declarations were to be treated as one continuing violation since they had all been made by the claimant while working for the same employer. The Federal Court of Appeal stated that subsection 38(1) of the EIA gives the power to the Commission to find that each false statement made by a claimant is to be treated as a separate statement and that the Umpire could not reduce the penalty without finding that the Commission failed to consider relevant factors nor had regard to irrelevant factors.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision 63021
Full Text of Decision 63021
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0191.05
Decision A-0316.04
Full Text of Decision A-0316.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Commission imposed a penalty to the claimant for undeclared earnings. The Fédéral Court stated that an Umpire can only intervene if he makes a finding that the BOR had failed to take into consideration relevant matters or that it had been influenced by improper considerations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision A-0045.04
Full Text of Decision A-0045.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The board of referees, relying solely on the testimonies and without considering the statutory declarations, determined the good faith of the employer. The Federal Court of Appeal finds that the Umpire could not make the decision that the Board of Referees should have issued without the transcript of the testimonies and relying solely on the statutory declarations. The Court refers the case back to the Board of Referees for rehearing.
Decision 61938
Full Text of Decision 61938
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0619.04
Decision 60930
Full Text of Decision 60930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0396.04
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision 60961
Full Text of Decision 60961
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0387.04
Decision A-0294.01
Full Text of Decision A-0294.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire determined that the claimant was entitled to retain the overpayment on the basis that it arose by reason of inaccurate information provided by the Commission. Relying on the decision in Granger (S-0684.85), the Court stated that it was not open to the Umpire to refrain from applying the Act and waive the payment of amounts properly owing thereunder.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to recover |
|
Decision A-0713.01
Full Text of Decision A-0713.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire failed to determine whether or not the allocation of earnings was properly made. Instead, he embarked upon a separate area of inquiry, that being whether or not the Commission had committed a reviewable error in refusing to write off the overpayment that had been created by the allocation. Held that such an inquiry is beyond the purview of the Umpire. Decision in Idemudia (A-0009.98) cited.
Decision A-172.01
Full Text of Decision A-172.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
In finding that there was no notification of the overpayment, the Umpire wrongly addressed a question that had not been raised before the Board of Referees. This Court (FCA) has already held that indication of the amount of the overpayment in the written submissions made to the Board of Referees by the Commission could serve as a "notification" within the meaning of ss. 52(1) of the Act. Rouleau (A-0930.96) and Gagnon (A-0676.96) cited.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision A-0610.01
Full Text of Decision A-0610.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant was paid $1,000 in the form of a contract signing bonus. According to the Commission, the triggering event was the signature of the new Master Agreement and the bonus was allocated in the week of the transaction. The Court stated that in questions of mixed fact and law, an Umpire can only intervene if the BOR's interpretation is unreasonable. The Court found that the BOR's application of the facts to the law was not unreasonable in deciding that the bonus dealt with past services and concluded that the Umpire could not intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Decision A-0618.00
Full Text of Decision A-0618.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that there was no reason to interfere and substitute his assessment of the claimant's credibility: 1) BOR had access to the relevant exhibits; 2) BOR had the advantage of hearing the claimant's testimony; 3) BOR concluded that the testimony was inconsistent with the claimant's statutory declaration; 4) BOR considered a question of fact and found that the claimant was credible.
Decision A-0417.01
Full Text of Decision A-0417.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 51196A
Full Text of Decision 51196A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0713.01
Decision 51479
Full Text of Decision 51479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0417.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 51187
Full Text of Decision 51187
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0294.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to recover |
|
Decision A-0549.99
Full Text of Decision A-0549.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Penalty initially imposed at $3,345 but reduced by the Commission to $1,410 in light of the claimant's stress due to the breakup of her marriage and her financial difficulties. Umpire held that the penalty was based on a percentage formula which is not the exercise of a judicial discretion and further reduced the penalty to $750. Decision reversed by the FCA which ruled that the Commission had considered the particular circumstances of the applicant and that there was not an unreasonable exercise by the Commission of its discretionary power to impose a penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 50795
Full Text of Decision 50795
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0172.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 49105
Full Text of Decision 49105
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0618.00
Decision A-0299.98
Full Text of Decision A-0299.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $7,740 imposed initially but reduced twice by the Commission based on extenuating circumstances. Umpire concluded that the BOR should review the matter once more to either reduce or vary the penalty or to write it off. The FCA held that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that neither the BOR or the Umpire could write-off a penalty or overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0378.98
Full Text of Decision A-0378.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that the penalty be repaid when claimant had regained her health in the amount of $100 per month until the full extinction of the debt. The FCA held that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to allow the claimant to repay the penalty by way of monthly installments. The Act does not confer such a power on an Umpire. The matter of arrangements for repayment of a penalty are left for the Commission to make with a claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0169.98
Full Text of Decision A-0169.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant's appeal allowed by BOR, which considered the claimant to be unemployed because of the small amount of time devoted to the business. Decision overturned by the Umpire but reestablished by the FCA. The Court determined that the Umpire had substituted his own assessment of the evidence for that of the BOR, whose role was to establish the facts. Umpire failed to show that the BOR's findings could be criticized as openly unreasonable, even though they are somewhat ambiguous.
Decision A-0225.98
Full Text of Decision A-0225.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant did not qualify for benefits having only 16 weeks of insurable employment while 26 were required. The BOR upheld the Commission's decision. Umpire ruled that the BOR had exceeded its jurisdiction, that the issue was of the Minister of National Revenue's (MRN) jurisdiction and ordered that the case be directed to MNR. In a brief decision, the FCA determined that the BOR was within its jurisdiction and set aside the Umpire's decision.
Decision A-0224.98
Full Text of Decision A-0224.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Case similar to CUB 40574 (A-0225.98). See summary indexed under FCA A-0225.98).
Decision 45255
Full Text of Decision 45255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0549.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0009.98
Full Text of Decision A-0009.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction when he referred the matter back to the BOR with instruction to reconsider the penalties with a view to writing them off if they are uncollectible or would result in an undue hardship to the claimant. Court concluded that these are the very terms of s. 60(1) b) of UIR and neither the Umpire nor BOR have the authority to writte-off or waive penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0737.97
Full Text of Decision A-0737.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Although an Umpire has the authority, when cancelling a BOR's decision, to give the decision that should have been given, he should do so only when the evidence in the file is sufficiently clear and not open to interpretation or subjective assessment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision A-0823.97
Full Text of Decision A-0823.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire decided that it is impossible to determine whether the Commission exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that there is sufficient evidence in the file indicating extenuating circumstances to send the case back to the BOR. The FCA ruled that the very brief but sufficient analysis by the BOR shows that this body considered both the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission and the opportunity to reduce the penalty. There is no need to sent the case back to the BOR and the Umpire’s decision is reversed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 40594
Full Text of Decision 40594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Case similar to CUB 40574 (FCA A-0225.98). See summary indexed under A-0225.98.
Decision 40574
Full Text of Decision 40574
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0225.98.
Decision A-0235.97
Full Text of Decision A-0235.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that BOR had erred in assessing the whole matter, and consequently had erred in law, in finding that the claimant could not rely upon his business as a principal means of livelihood. Umpire thus ruled that the documentary evidence accumulated in the record was convincing, and that the claimant was not unemployed. FCA set aside the Umpire’s decision and referred the matter back to the Umpire to be disposed of, taking it for granted that the errors that the BOR might have committed in assessing the evidence did not justify the Umpire’s intervention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
Decision 37691A
Full Text of Decision 37691A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0299.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0990.96
Full Text of Decision A-0990.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant lost his employment due to a breach of company policy when he submitted inaccurate expense reports. Umpire reversed the BOR's decision on the fact that claimant's grievance was accepted and he was reinstated in his position. FCA set aside Umpire's decision on the basis that he can't overturned the BOR's decision without first determining that BOR's decision was erroneous in light of s. 80 of the Act. Also, Court pointed out that the first question that should had been answered by the Umpire is whether the BOR applied the right test in deciding that claimant's behaviour amounted to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision A-0769.96
Full Text of Decision A-0769.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
By deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment, the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. No reversible error made by the BOR. Umpire merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Decision 39353
Full Text of Decision 39353
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0169.98
Decision A-0138.96
Full Text of Decision A-0138.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire stated that as the claimant was not present and did not testify before the BOR, and as the latter's decision was based on their assesment of the appeal docket, he ruled that the assesment of the BOR could not be said to be superior of the assesment which he could make. FCA found that the Umpire commited an error of law because he improperly substituted his opinion for that of the BOR without identifying an error of law or erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
Decision A-0676.96
Full Text of Decision A-0676.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire erred in law since he did not have the authority to change the Commission’s decision whereby it refused to follow up a recommendation to write off an overpayment. The Commission exercised its authority under Reg. 60 correctly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision A-0733.95
Full Text of Decision A-0733.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire erred in law when he allocated pursuant to s. 57 & 58 of the Reg., a sum received by the claimant for unjust dismissal and then treated those weeks as weeks of insurable employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
awards |
|
Decision A-0206.96
Full Text of Decision A-0206.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Only the second decision of the Board of Referees was appealed to the Umpire, a decision which he confirmed. The first decision, which the second one rescinded, was not appealed; therefore, the Umpire was unable to amend it and even less to make a declaratory judgment regarding its effects. For these reasons, the FCA found that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to decide on the applicability of ss. 87(1) to the BOR’s first decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Decision 35952
Full Text of Decision 35952
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0990.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
