Decision A0094.07
Full Text of Decision A0094.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
|
|
Summary:
This case involves the jurisdiction of the Chief Umpire to vary two related decisions of an Umpire on the amount of a benefit overpayment and a penalty after the claimant had applied for a judicial review by the FCA but before that judicial review proceeded. The Court concluded that the Chief Umpire erred. The Court considered that the Chief Umpire took it upon himself to review the Umpire's decisions, which were already the subject of a judicial review application, without any motion inviting him to do so and failing to provide the Commission with an opportunity of addressing him on the issues of whether it was open to him to reconsider the Umpire's decisions and, if so, whether reconsideration was justified.
Decision A0294.06
Full Text of Decision A0294.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
|
|
Summary:
In a case of misconduct, the Umpire allowed in evidence Minutes of Settlement between the claimant and the employer which were not before the Board. The Commission argued that the settlement minutes were inadmissible before the Umpire since they existed prior to the Board hearing. Whether the settlement minutes constituted "new facts" or a material fact that was unknown to the Board at the time of their decision, the decision of the Umpire to admit the minutes into evidence was permissible under section 120 of the Act. The Court took into account its decision in Dubois (A-728-97).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 38225
Full Text of Decision 38225
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
It must be made clear that adjournments are the curse of the whole judicial process. Many times, they bring the system into disrepute. Peremptory hearings mean that the appeal is to proceed unless there are most unusual circumstances. None exist in this case.
Decision 22827A
Full Text of Decision 22827A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
I can hardly accept the argument that an attorney is not available because of a heavy schedule; this does not constitute a valid reason to set aside the order of a judge to the effect that an appeal must be heard in a peremptory manner. The notice had been issued several weeks ago.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
waive |
Decision 22321
Full Text of Decision 22321
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Adjournment sought because counsel for claimant not available for the hearing on 23-11-92. Both he and claimant were sent notices on 18-8-92 and asked to advise "immediately" if for any serious reason they were unable to attend. No notice was given; no significant reason given for unavailability.
Decision 10805A
Full Text of Decision 10805A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
Adjournment refused. Umpire sittings attended with considerable expense from public purse. Umpire brought to convenient location for all claimants. Registrar comes from Ottawa with all files. Arrangements made to notify all parties. Very special reasonsrequired.
Decision A-0930.84
Full Text of Decision A-0930.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
appeal withdrawn |
|
Summary:
The appeal to the Umpire having been withdrawn prior to the date of the hearing and there being no requirement in the Act that the consent of the Umpire be obtained, the Umpire was at no time seized of the matter and had no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal.
Decision 26127
Full Text of Decision 26127
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
The Umpire is bound to apply the doctrine of stare decisis which, since the beginning of the notion of precedents in common law, means that when confronted with inconsistent precedents, the adjudicator must follow the more (or most) authoritative judicial precedent.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 22910
Full Text of Decision 22910
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
The Commission states that claimant's previous case (3 years earlier) cannot be relied upon because there was no hearing since they conceded the appeal, and that given this fact, no jurisprudence was established upon which the claimant could now rely. I have to agree with this submission.
Decision 19723
Full Text of Decision 19723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
One Board is not bound by the decision of another but they are all bound by decisions of Umpires. Boards and Umpires are bound by decisions of the Federal Court. As a result, even if one Board decides one way, another may hold that the jurisprudence requires different decisions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Decision 16176
Full Text of Decision 16176
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
It was suggested that the Commission should provide a copy of its decision in Collingwood. It appears that the ruling, not substantiated by any appeal, could not be binding in other cases, although consistency is always desirable.
Decision 15186
Full Text of Decision 15186
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
Claimant's counsel referred to a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Alberta. While this decision is instructive, it is not binding. [p._4-5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
religious objections |
|
Decision 14550
Full Text of Decision 14550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
Of course a decision by a Board in another case is not binding on an Umpire nor does it even constitute jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 13443
Full Text of Decision 13443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
A Board decision in another case is not binding on an Umpire who must decide the case before him on the basis of the facts and law as he interprets it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 12081
Full Text of Decision 12081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
While the decision of a Human Rights Tribunal could not, of course, be binding upon an Umpire, it appeared to me to raise important questions of law upon which I wished to hear further argument.
Decision 10699
Full Text of Decision 10699
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Summary:
Insured produced decision of another board which had decided favourably in identical situation. I explained to him that decision was wrong. I could not allow another error to be committed.
Decision A-0686.99
Full Text of Decision A-0686.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
Held by the FCA that the Umpire's conclusion was not one which was open to him since the Court had already ruled (see FCA A-0667.96) that the BOR had failed to properly consider the subjective aspect of the claimant's statements. His only option was to give effect to it by allowing the appeal and referring the matter back to a BOR or determine the issue for himself on the basis that the BOR had committed the error identified by the Court and dispose of the appeal accordingly.
Decision 34290B
Full Text of Decision 34290B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0686.99
Decision A-0194.97
Full Text of Decision A-0194.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
Claimant objected to a decision in her favour, criticizing the Umpire for stating, in the reasons he gave in support of his decision, that following her employment on the family farm, the claimant should be considered a “self-employed person” in the agriculture sector. FCA found that this assertion by the Umpire was not necessary to his finding. It was simply an obiter dictum, in other words an expression of opinion that had no effect on the decision the Umpire had to render and was not binding on either the Umpire or the other jurisdictions that may be called upon to deal with this issue. FCA dismissed the application solely because it was not directed against the Umpire’s decision.
Decision A-0873.96
Full Text of Decision A-0873.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
The claimant maintained that the Umpire went beyond his jurisdiction in ruling on the question of entitlement to EI benefit and the penalties imposed, though the only question submitted to him concerned the BOR’s power to order that the Commission’s decision be referred back to it for re-examination. FCA noted that this argument of the claimant ignored the fact that the Umpire had also dealt with a second appeal involving the same parties, and had ruled on the two substantive issues. FCA therefore found that even though it would have been preferable, from a technical point of view, for the Umpire to write his decision on the merits in the context of the second appeal rather than the first, the claimant had suffered no prejudice because the two appeals were before the Umpire, and the Umpire also had to rule of the merits of the BOR’s decision regarding entitlement and penalties.
Decision A-0707.96
Full Text of Decision A-0707.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
The claimant maintained that the Umpire went beyond his jurisdiction in ruling on the question of entitlement to EI benefit and the penalties imposed, though the only question submitted to him concerned the BOR’s power to order that the Commission’s decision be referred back to it for re-examination. FCA noted that this argument of the claimant ignored the fact that the Umpire had also dealt with a second appeal involving the same parties, and had ruled on the two substantive issues. FCA therefore found that even though it would have been preferable, from a technical point of view, for the Umpire to write his decision on the merits in the context of the second appeal rather than the first, the claimant had suffered no prejudice because the two appeals were before the Umpire, and the Umpire also had to rule of the merits of the BOR’s decision regarding entitlement and penalties.
Decision A-1035.96
Full Text of Decision A-1035.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
An Umpire who disposes of an appeal from a decision of a BOR has no jurisdiction to modify the effect of a previous decision of the BOR which is not the subject of the appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
moot question |
|
Decision A-0206.96
Full Text of Decision A-0206.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
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 |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 27858A
Full Text of Decision 27858A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
Claimant's legal representative advised the BOR that the appeal on one of the two issues was abandonned. Claimant now wishes to revoke his abandonment of the appeal. Umpire has no jurisdiction to do that and to hear the appeal. Only recourse is to have the matter come before a different BOR.
Decision 18287A
Full Text of Decision 18287A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0586.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
lockout as a sham |
|
Decision A-0586.93
Full Text of Decision A-0586.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred on one issue. It is clear that only the first group had requested that the said decision be reviewed; the other two groups clearly made no such request. Accordingly the Umpire could not allow an application for review which had never been requested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
lockout as a sham |
|
Decision 52792
Full Text of Decision 52792
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant entitled to a maximum of 10 weeks of parental benefits and not the 35 weeks set out in Bill C-32. She appeals on the grounds that the specific provision infringes her right to equality as guaranteed by the Charter. Relying on the FCA decision in Nishri (A-0216.96), the umpire held that the cut-off date of Dec. 31, 2000 was simply a criteria selected by Parliament for determining whether a claimant will be governed by the old rules or the new rules and that it was not based on any personal characteristic of the claimant. Appeal dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
| parental benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
Decision A-0216.96
Full Text of Decision A-0216.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a child on 5-09-90 (prior to the coming into force of Bill C-21 on 18-11-90). She received maternity benefits but was not eligible to parental benefits. The BOR dismissed the appeal: no jurisdiction to consider a Charter issue and so did the Umpire. The FCA held that Umpire failed to deal with the constitutional issue. The Umpire must find that a particular section of the Act contravenes the Charter and that it cannot be saved by Section1. The Court agreed however that Umpires cannot issue declarations of invalidity pursuant to SS.24(1) of the Constitutional Act. Such remedies are reserved to superior courts. Case returned for redetermination on the constitutional issues.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision 2122291
Full Text of Decision 2122291
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
The particular UI legislative scheme contemplates that constitutional questions be more appropriately presented to the Umpire, on appeal, rather than to the Board itself. The Board did not have jurisdiction to rule that s. 31 (severance benefit) violated the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| federal court |
role |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
| federal court |
appeal system |
levels |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 15180
Full Text of Decision 15180
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
His powers sitting as an Umpire are merely as the ZWARICH case decided to find whether the sections of the legislation impugned as being contrary to Charter are of no force and effect, but not to pronounce a declaration as to constitutional validity of the statute.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
charter |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| earnings |
pension |
military forces |
|
Decision A-0521.86
Full Text of Decision A-0521.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
It is clear that neither a Board nor an Umpire have the right to pronounce declarations as to the constitutional validity of statutes and regulations. That is a privilege reserved to the superior courts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision 12543
Full Text of Decision 12543
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0521.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Decision A0351.08
Full Text of Decision A0351.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
procedure |
Summary:
The FCA found that contrary to the Umpire's findings, there was no evidence on record suggesting that a concession had been made by the Commission to the effect that the income from 2002 and 2003 was not subject to allocations since the service had been performed before 2002. As such, the FCA found that the Umpire's conclusion in that regard was a breach of the rules of procedural fairness within the meaning of section 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
Self-employment |
|
|
Decision 26723
Full Text of Decision 26723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
procedure |
Summary:
In the absence of compliance with the appropriate section of the Federal Court Act, I will not entertain the application to the effect that, pursuant to s. 15 of the Charter, the provisions of s. 13 and 36 of the Act offend the constitutional rights of the claimant.
Decision 22459A
Full Text of Decision 22459A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
charter |
procedure |
Summary:
Procedures presented in detail with regard to the possibility of challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Decision A-0078.01
Full Text of Decision A-0078.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed because claimant had not reported all of his earnings. The penalty was subsequently rescinded but claimant stated that he had been wrongfully accused of fraud resulting in a damage to his reputation. Umpire dismissed the claimant's allegation as the penalty had been removed. Claimant appealed at the FCA as he was seeking damages for defamation. Application summarily dismissed: the Court is without jurisdiction to do what the claimant requests.
Decision 50255
Full Text of Decision 50255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Summary:
See summary under FCA A-0078.01
Decision 15732
Full Text of Decision 15732
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Summary:
Appeals to Umpire may only be brought under s.80. Claimant's submissions with regard to alleged negligent actions of the Commission and his request for punitive damages do not fall within this section and must form the basis of a separate action.
Decision A-0258.01
Full Text of Decision A-0258.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The claimant submitted an application to amend the Umpire's decision in light of facts she claimed were new. Application dismissed by the Umpire, who found that the claimant did not show that the evidence she was trying to introduce could not have been obtained by a diligent person at the time of her testimony before the BOR. Reference made to Chan (A-0185.94). Application for judicial review summarily dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A-0145.00
Full Text of Decision A-0145.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Held that since the facts in question existed before the hearing was held in the first case, they only qualify as "new facts" if they could not reasonably have been discovered by the applicant before the first decision was rendered and, if they had been adduced, they would have been decisive of the issue that the Umpire had to decide. Reference made to the FCA decision in Chan (A-0185.94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 48476A
Full Text of Decision 48476A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0258.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 39704B
Full Text of Decision 39704B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0145.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0728.97
Full Text of Decision A-0728.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Umpire dismissed request to produce a doctor's certificate, saying that the evidence had been available during the hearing before the BOR, that the claimant had not tried to present a certificate at that time and that it did not constitute a new fact. FCA stated that the fundamental condition for new evidence is that it be material, in that it is likely to have a major impact on the resolution of the issue, if not to provide a complete solution.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 35972
Full Text of Decision 35972
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Evidence produced by claimant to Umpire would have been available well before the hearing date if he had acted expeditiously. It is well established that evidence that was available at the time of the hearing but not produced cannot be considered as a "new fact" within the meaning of S.86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
evidence new |
amendment of decision |
|
Decision 32724A
Full Text of Decision 32724A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Ruled that the facts submitted by the beneficiary were only a different version of facts already known. The information provided by the beneficiary contained no new facts, and could not provide grounds for intervention by the umpire. Reference to FCA ruling in Conita Chan (A-185-94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 26619
Full Text of Decision 26619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
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 |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0084.95
Full Text of Decision A-0084.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
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 |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 29529
Full Text of Decision 29529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Consistent test with new evidence is to establish not only that the evidence was not known or did not exist at the time of the hearing before the Board, but that it could not have been known even after a diligent search.
Evidence of a prosecution which may or may not survive the test of the preliminary hearing is not a conviction. A criminal conviction may be receivable as evidence, especially if the conviction is the result of a plea of guilty, which is evidence of "judicial admission".
Decision A-0620.94
Full Text of Decision A-0620.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Umpire was clearly in error to think that he could accept evidence that was not before the Board of Referees: see TAYLOR. That being said we do not believe that it was really new evidence in this case, but rather a reiteration by the claimant of facts already before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 25663
Full Text of Decision 25663
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0620.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 26821
Full Text of Decision 26821
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Commission objected to the claimant filing before the Umpire a transcript of the hearing before the Board, some 37 pages. The Commission was aware of claimant's request for the tape more than a year earlier and could have obtained its own copy. I agreed to the filing of the transcript.
Decision 26616
Full Text of Decision 26616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
S. 86 is not intended to enable a party to re-argue the appeal before an Umpire unless there is new evidence of a decisive nature which was not available at the time of the hearing. Accordingly, I have not taken the information supplied by the employer into account in arriving at my decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
unhappy atmosphere |
|
Decision A-0185.94
Full Text of Decision A-0185.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Reconsideration by an Umpire on the basis of new facts should remain a rare commodity. UI claimants are given an exceptionally large number of opportunities to challenge UI decisions and Umpires should be careful not to let the reconsideration process be abused by careless or ill-advised claimants.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 26178
Full Text of Decision 26178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Employer was advised by counsel not to attend Board hearing due to proceedings pending before the Labour Relations Board. CUB 21410 referred to. He had an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing but declined to participate. He cannot now come forward and offer "new" evidence to an Umpire.
Decision 23925
Full Text of Decision 23925
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Question: Whether I would have to find an error in law to return the matter to the Board. S. 86 provides that the Umpire may rescind or amend the decision on the presentation of new facts. It has also been interpreted to allow an Umpire to return the matter to the Board on the basis of new facts.
Decision 22525A
Full Text of Decision 22525A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
My function as an Umpire is strictly a matter of judicial review and I have no jurisdiction to retry the matter as a trial de novo and to entertain evidence which was not entered before the Board. I must not sit as a judge de novo and must turn back evidence not before the Board to another Board.
Decision 23440
Full Text of Decision 23440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
It is not for the Umpire to rehear the evidence or to order a new hearing simply because one of the parties thinks there was evidence that could have been presented to the Board but, by the choice of that party, was not presented.
Decision 23146
Full Text of Decision 23146
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
It has been held that s. 86 does not restrict each particular entity, i.e., Commission, Board or Umpire to rescinding or amending only its own specific decisions, but that any decision made by any entity may be affected by the presentation of new facts, or on the other listed grounds.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 23095
Full Text of Decision 23095
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Counsel sought to adduce new evidence in the form of an affidavit of claimant's accountant. I consider the judgment in BARTONE does not accord with the majority in BRIÈRE which clearly envisaged that the power in s. 102 as being related only to the power of those bodies to amend their own decisions.
Decision 22638
Full Text of Decision 22638
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
TAYLOR held that an Umpire on an appeal from a decision of the Board cannot receive new evidence going to the merits of a claim unless such evidence was sought to be adduced in the proceedings before the Board and was improperly excluded. The latter exception does not apply in the present case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 22477
Full Text of Decision 22477
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
I note that by a letter to the Umpire claimant indicates that she is now available from 2 p.m. to midnight and on weekends. That change may only be relevant for a determination by the Commission of the appropriate date to terminate her disentitlement, a matter not raised in this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
transportation difficulties |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
|
Decision 21070A
Full Text of Decision 21070A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
I must address the question of new evidence presented by counsel for claimant. S. 86 quoted. The Board has ruled in favour of claimant without the benefit of this new evidence which counsel now wishes to submit. I am not prepared to allow the introduction of such at this stage of the proceedings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Decision 21648
Full Text of Decision 21648
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
One last matter to consider: part of the Deferred Salary Payment Plan which had not been presented to the Board was added to the file by the Commission. Based on TAYLOR, I do not feel that I am entitled to consider any evidence which was not before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
deferred salary leave plans |
|
|
Decision 20834A
Full Text of Decision 20834A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear that evidence which could have been brought before the Board is not "new evidence" which can be introduced before an Umpire. The case cannot be remade at that stage and is not in the nature of a process "de novo".
Decision 21410
Full Text of Decision 21410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The evidence could have been introduced at the Board hearing. The employer, for whatever reason, did not attend the Board hearing and offered no explanation for his absence. Rather, he chose to raise a different version before the Umpire. He is precluded from doing so.
Decision 20401
Full Text of Decision 20401
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
I do not think that TAYLOR applies here. Where the Board's decision has been quashed and the Umpire decides to render the decision the Board should have made rather than to send the appeal back for a rehearing, I think ss. 78(1) intended that Umpires might hear new evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Decision 20192
Full Text of Decision 20192
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
She is asking that her disqualification be reduced. No new facts should be introduced or received at the Umpire level and particularly when one considers that this was information fully within her knowledge at the time of initial hearing. Not to be referred back to the Board.
Decision A-0681.90
Full Text of Decision A-0681.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Following the Board's decision, a letter was received from the employer. The Umpire used it to allow the case. He was not entitled to do so. Those proceedings were not de novo. They were an "appeal". S. 80 and 81 do not empower the Umpire to receive new evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 14246A
Full Text of Decision 14246A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0681.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 19724
Full Text of Decision 19724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Commission urged that the settlement of the grievance not be taken into consideration in review of the Board's decision. While I agree that in the normal course events following the decision are not relevant, s.86 permits the Umpire to take account of facts known only after.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 19715
Full Text of Decision 19715
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
In analyzing the employer's further material, some of it must be rejected because it amounts to new evidence. The Umpire is not expected to conduct a new trial: he can only review the decision of the Board. Unable to consider a new affidavit which was not before the Board.
Decision 18860
Full Text of Decision 18860
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
As an Umpire, I cannot conclude on the basis of "new" evidence that the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for the relevant material before it: see OLIVIER.
Decision 18831
Full Text of Decision 18831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Although it may be that the evidence was not known to the CEIC at the time of the Board's hearing nor could the CEIC have foreseen that it would be required to respond to that submitted by claimant, it would be beyond my function to admit it and conclude that the Board erred.
Decision 18582
Full Text of Decision 18582
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Unfortunately for the claimant, I cannot accept the production of the 2 additional exhibits (job search list and letter from school) as further evidence for his appeal. It is not my function to rehear the case that should have been put to the Board.
Decision 14800
Full Text of Decision 14800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0369.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A-0369.88
Full Text of Decision A-0369.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Umpire was entitled under s. 86 to receive and consider as additional evidence the agreement reached before the Labour Board, which was not before the Board of Referees. Since new facts may be presented to an Umpire under s. 86, she was correct in allowing claimant's appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 15591
Full Text of Decision 15591
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
For this appeal, claimant submitted a letter from doctor stating that he would have been capable of light duties as of a certain date. Where new facts have been presented, Umpires are empowered under s.86 to amend decisions of Boards.
Decision 15581
Full Text of Decision 15581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Job search list for period commencing 30-11. Board's decision given 25-11. In deciding if the Board's decision was correct, I may only consider the evidence applicable to the period before the hearing. The fact that claimant began a job search after is not relevant to this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
employment left |
|
Decision 15103
Full Text of Decision 15103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Claimant endeavoured to file 2 documents to show that the money she received was not wages. This is not a new trial but an appeal from determination made by Board based on material before it. I did not accept these documents. Case referred back to Board.
Decision 14984
Full Text of Decision 14984
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Teacher attempting to prove availability for the summer months. Moreover, the evidence of the job search activity was not before the Board and therefore cannot constitute part of the record for the purposes of this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
Decision 14396
Full Text of Decision 14396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
It is irrelevant that since [the Board's decision], the claimant has changed his mind [by removing restrictions] as I can only decide whether or not the Board made a correct decision on the basis of information relating to the period which preceded its decision.
Decision 13050
Full Text of Decision 13050
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Argument before Umpire: voluntarily left because she had been sexually harassed, which she had never mentioned at board when employer attended; allegation not admissible at this stage.
Decision 12447
Full Text of Decision 12447
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Only in exceptional circumstances can new evidence be brought before the Umpire: if brought to light only after the hearing before the Board and is of sufficient importance. Here, the opportunity was given to attend the hearing before the Board but claimant failed to appear.
Decision 11647
Full Text of Decision 11647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Claimant was able to obtain further medical evidence sometime after the Board's hearing. He insisted that his case be heard by the Umpire instead of reexamination by the Board. As such evidence was not available at the Board's hearing, it is proper thatthe case be referred back to the Board.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
S.86 contemplates that new evidence may be adduced before the Umpire. It is thus often necessary to refer the appeal back to the Board. However, s.86 does not say that the Commission, Board or Umpire may receive new evidence only if the decision was given by it, but any decision. [p._5-6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision A-0560.84
Full Text of Decision A-0560.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Even if the CEIC was denied a hearing as to whether new evidence by claimant was receivable by the Umpire, it has suffered no prejudice. All objections could properly be raised at the re-hearing before the Board. The Umpire had the requisite authority to order the Board to re-hear the appeal.
Decision A-0308.81
Full Text of Decision A-0308.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Umpire may not rely on new evidence to conclude that the board committed an error under para. 80(c).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
length of hearing |
|
Decision 63144
Full Text of Decision 63144
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
The claimant's counsel asked to bring forward a witness whom he had wanted to bring forward before the Board of Referees. The judge stated that it was established in case law that the appeal from a Board's decision to an Umpire must normally be confined to the record before the Board and that the counsel, who was present at the BOR hearing, could have brought this witness before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
employment defined |
|
Decision 24324
Full Text of Decision 24324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
Claimant's request is to reopen the hearing and hear one witness. No substantive reason is given as to why the witness could not be called before the Board. It is not suggested what this new evidence may be. This would not be a proper exercise of my discretion and would be contrary to s. 80.
Decision 20677A
Full Text of Decision 20677A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
Counsel sought to present new witnesses. These were known at the time of the Board hearing but they were allegedly unable to testify due to illness. He admitted that no adjournment had been sought. I refused to hear the witnesses, such extraordinary procedure not being permitted.
Decision 17150
Full Text of Decision 17150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
The Board ruled that there was no proof of misconduct. On appeal, the employer was prepared to produce persons as witnesses. I declined to hear new evidence on credibility which is a matter for the Board. This was available at time of the Board hearing.Not entitled to have it heard now.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 10889
Full Text of Decision 10889
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
Claimant wanted to testify under oath before the Umpire. S.80 does not provide for a new trial but for an appeal. Credibility was for the Board and is not for the Umpire. Of course, if new evidence were discovered since the hearing of the Board, I wouldhear it or send it to the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
church minister |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision A0352.11
Full Text of Decision A0352.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Te Commission is claiming from the claimant an $11,151.00 overpayment under the EIA for the January to September 2006 period on the ground that, during that period, the claimant was self-employed or engaged in the operation of a business. She is also seeking a $5,000.00 penalty for alleged false or misleading statements made by the claimant. The FCA determined that the only criticism the parties can make of the Umpire is that he did not set aside the decision of the BOR on the ground that it had not explicitly stated its conclusion that the claimant’s business activities were not his principal means of livelihood during the concerned benefit period. At first sight, based on a reading of its decision, the BOR does not seem to have completely taken into account the approach and principles set out in Martens. I would allow in part the application for judicial review and set aside that part of the umpire’s decision, respecting the claimant’s unemployment status, and refer the matter back to the Chief Umpire or his or her designate for a new determination.
Decision A0221.11
Full Text of Decision A0221.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
The claimant worked while in receipt of EI benefits. He failed to declare earnings from this employment. The earnings were allocated in accordance with the EIR. The Commission issued a penalty and a “very serious” notice of violation. The Board allowed the appeal, without providing reasons, in respect of the penalty and notice of violation. The Commission appealed to the Umpire. The Umpire found that the only issue before him was the issue of the penalty. The Umpire failed to deal with the issue of the notice of violation and whether it was properly imposed. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review and held that the Umpire erred in failing to consider the issue of the notice of violation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision A0004.10
Full Text of Decision A0004.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed due to his own misconduct following accusations of vandalism, and was therefore disqualified for an indefinite period. The claimant denied the alleged acts and following a court appearance, he was acquitted. The AGC's application for judicial review is dismissed on the basis that the BOR was entitled to conclude that the claimant did not commit the alleged acts, and the Umpire properly refused to intervene in a question of credibility.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
vandalism |
|
|
Decision 28479A
Full Text of Decision 28479A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
At the hearing of the Commission's appeal, the Umpire is advised that the claimant had ceded her assets (bankruptcy). The Umpire concluded that he had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that the Commission should stay its claim.
Decision 24011A
Full Text of Decision 24011A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Claimant seeks clarification on the ground that I failed to rule on the allegation of the Charter violation. The Commission argues that I have no jurisdiction under s. 86. SEVERUD referred to. The Charter issue was fairly raised by claimant and within my jurisdiction to entertain. To be considered.
Decision A-0346.93
Full Text of Decision A-0346.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Ordinarily, in setting aside the Umpire's decision and referring it back, we might direct that it be referred on to a Board of Referees as the issue was not resolved (error of law). However, the Commission requests that the Umpire make the necessary finding as, under s.81, he may.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 22558
Full Text of Decision 22558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0346.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0715.87
Full Text of Decision A-0715.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
The Umpire noted that the Board had totally ignored the issue raised by ss. 43(2). He set aside the Board's decision, making no direction or other finding. This failure amounted to a refusal of jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 14001
Full Text of Decision 14001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0715.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision A-1157.83
Full Text of Decision A-1157.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Case allowed by Umpire due to breach of natural justice [without deciding on the merit of the case]. The matter is referred back to an Umpire with the direction that he refer the matter back to a differently constituted Board.
Decision A-1650.83
Full Text of Decision A-1650.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Appeal allowed by Umpire without questioning the merit of the case on the basis that one Board member was biased. Umpire's decision set aside and case to be referred back to a differently constituted Board for rehearing in accordance with the Umpire's directions.
Decision 15453A
Full Text of Decision 15453A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
The insured person wishes to call a witness of whom he never spoke beforehand. It would be contrary to the good administration of justice to allow an unlucky litigant to try to supplement evidence which should have been submitted at the appropriate time and place.
Decision 17186
Full Text of Decision 17186
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
There is no rule against Umpires hearing viva voce evidence particularly when a Board's decision is faulty but I do not think it appropriate to do so here. Claimant's request has taken the Commission by surprise who considers it would be prejudiced if new evidence heard.
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 14357
Full Text of Decision 14357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
Eligibility of a foreign student who does not possess a work permit. Claimant's counsel moved to have added as intervenors other students and organizations. Motion refused. Eligibility based on specific facts of each individual case. [p. 2]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
work permit limitations in canada |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Decision 10690
Full Text of Decision 10690
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
Nothing to confirm that board refused to hear a witness. Even before me, witness was not called. Under 78(1), 81, 85 and 86, I could have heard witness and decided whether I should intervene or refer matter back to board.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
The Commission is not prejudiced by this procedure [Umpire accepting viva voce evidence]. It is always open to the Commission to ask for adjournment and bring forward contradictory evidence; always open to rebut claimant's version under s.86, even if there is no adjournment.
The Commission objected to viva voce evidence. No transcript kept of Board proceedings. For the purpose of s.80, the only way possible for the Umpire to know what oral evidence was before the Board or how the proceeding was conducted is through testimony. This is quite appropriate.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision 10602
Full Text of Decision 10602
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
The Commission anticipated oral evidence to be adduced in respect of the merits of the issue, rather than the conduct of the proceedings. I do not think the distinction matters. In either case, the Umpire is entitled to hear viva voce evidence to apply s.80(c).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision A-0184.95
Full Text of Decision A-0184.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
procedures |
|
Summary:
Suggested that Umpire violated a principal of natural justice by relying on a CUB not discussed at hearing. Rejected by FCA as decision did not contain a "new ground". Courts are not bound to consider only authorities submitted by counsel. Nothing to prevent them from using fruits of their research.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
supplementary unemployment benefits |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Decision A-1064.82
Full Text of Decision A-1064.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
removal of board members |
|
Summary:
The Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the Commission to cause the Chairman of the Board to be examined under oath with respect to the accusation made by claimant in her appeal and that he possibly be removed from the list of members.
Decision A0066.08
Full Text of Decision A0066.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The FCA allowed the claimant's application for judicial review under EIA 120 on the basis that the Umpire was not entitled to reconsider the BOR's decision simply on the basis that it misapprehended the facts and the Umpire would have reached a different conclusion.
Decision A0576.06
Full Text of Decision A0576.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The claimant applied for judicial review of three umpire decisions. The first CUB upheld the Board's decision that the claimant had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct (disregarding the employer's property by climbing over a newly installed fence and causing significant damage). The second CUB dismissed the claimant's request for reconsideration under section 120 of the EI Act on the ground there were no new facts. The third CUB involved a second request for reconsideration this time refused by the Chief Umpire again on the ground of no new facts. The Court said the only one of the three decisions properly before it was the last decision of the Chief Umpire since the other two were not challenged within the 30-day delay prescribed by section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act. The claimant failed to convince the Court that that there was any basis upon which the first Umpire's decision should be reconsidered and the Court concluded that neither the first Umpire nor the Chief Umpire made any error in refusing reconsideration of the first CUB. The claimant also failed to convince the Court that the first CUB decision in regard to misconduct was in error.
Decision A-0624.04
Full Text of Decision A-0624.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
In the absence of special circumstances, the Court has repeatedly stated that it will not use a judicial review of a reconsideration decision as a vehicle to attack collaterally the original decision. The fact that the claimant is self-represented does not in itself constitute special circumstances.
Decision A-0418.03
Full Text of Decision A-0418.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The claimant had received an overpayment of benefits by the Commission as a result of an allocation of undeclared earnings. The claimant applied for a reconsideration of the Umpire's decision, pursuant to s.120, which was denied on the basis that no new facts were submitted. The FCA maintained that this was open to the Umpire on the record and that his decision could not be questioned.
Decision A-0251.03
Full Text of Decision A-0251.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The claimant states that his two brothers and his sister won their respective appeals dealing with the same factual situations. The Court found that there were no new facts nor a mistake as to material fact that would have warranted the Umpire to reconsider his decision.
Decision A-0354.03
Full Text of Decision A-0354.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The Court found that the Umpire was correct in not reconsidering his decisions and dismissed the applications on the basis that the claimants were essentially attempting to re-litigate their Appeals on a section 120 rather than present new facts.
Decision A-0172.03
Full Text of Decision A-0172.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The claimant was refused an extension of time to file an appeal. In deciding on the claimant's appeal for the Umpire to reconsider his first decision the Court agreed with the Umpire in finding that there were no new facts permitting the application of section 120 of the Act.
Decision A-0566.02
Full Text of Decision A-0566.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Claimant's WLI payable under the Manitoba Teachers' Society Long Term Disability Plan was not excluded from the definition of earnings. The Umpire refused to reconsider his original decision pursuant to section 120 of the EI Act. The Court found that the Umpire had correctly concluded that the claimant failed to present new facts or to show that his original decision was based on a material mistake.
Decision 55867A
Full Text of Decision 55867A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0418.03
Decision A-0194.02
Full Text of Decision A-0194.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The Court found that the Umpire was correct in dismissing the section 120 application of the claimant on the grounds that no new facts were disclosed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 55138A
Full Text of Decision 55138A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0354.03
Decision 51123A
Full Text of Decision 51123A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0251.03
Decision 55121A
Full Text of Decision 55121A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0172.03
Decision A-0012.02
Full Text of Decision A-0012.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The Court concluded that the claimant could not rely on new evidence brought forward during a section 120 request for reconsideration.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 54428A
Full Text of Decision 54428A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0566.02
Decision A-0020.00
Full Text of Decision A-0020.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The BOR had refused to allow the claimant to put in evidence before it of her job search in order to demonstrate that her involvement with the business was only minor. The FCA held that the Umpire erred in refusing to receive the claimant's evidence regarding the Board's refusal to look at her job search. A Board is normally obliged to hear such evidence and its refusal to do so, if unexplained, could be found by an Umpire to be a denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision A-0417.00
Full Text of Decision A-0417.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
The umpire weighed the evidence and found that claimant had failed to prove the "new fact" that he had been ill on the date of the first hearing when he did not show up. Decision upheld by the FCA. The medical certificate gives no indication of what the probems were, or why he could not attend. It merely states "OFF... due to medical illness". Regardless of any "large and liberal" interpretation which may be applied to this note, details cannot be derived where none exist.
Decision 46812A
Full Text of Decision 46812A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0417.00
Decision A-0728.97
Full Text of Decision A-0728.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Umpire dismissed request to produce a doctor's certificate, saying that the evidence had been available during the hearing before the BOR, that the claimant had not tried to present a certificate at that time and that it did not constitute a new fact. FCA stated that the fundamental condition for new evidence is that it be material, in that it is likely to have a major impact on the resolution of the issue, if not to provide a complete solution.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 39562A
Full Text of Decision 39562A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
New facts within the meaning of section 120 must be decisive in relation to the matter submitted. The fact that the claimant proved his availability for the period in question is not a new fact that was decisive for the case submitted, since the Umpire did not have to rule on the claimant’s availability but rather on his unemployment status.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A-0430.96
Full Text of Decision A-0430.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Claimant disqualified for having voluntarily left his employment without just cause. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. Claimant sought reconsideration by way of a decision rendered by an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act (LSA). Decision maintained by Umpire. FCA held that reconsideration of the umpire's decision based on the decision of an adjudicator made in paralleled proceedings taken pursuant to the LSA was unnecessary since the factual conclusions of the adjudicator were not "new facts" within S.86 of the U.I. Act and were irrelevant to the issues before the umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Decision A-0044.97
Full Text of Decision A-0044.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Claimant seeks reconsideration of a previous decision rendered by the umpire. Quoting Chan (A-185-94), the umpire stated that the scope of an Umpire's authority for reconsideration is narrow and may be exercised only upon one or more of the following conditions: 1) presentation of new facts, 2) decision given without knowledge of some material fact or, 3) decision based upon a mistake as to some material fact. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by FCA.
Decision A-0417.96
Full Text of Decision A-0417.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Claimant's request for amending the decision made on basis that other cases involving same employer had a different outcome was denied by Umpire. Summarily dismissed by the FCA.
Decision A-0648.94
Full Text of Decision A-0648.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Held by the FCA that there was no breach of natural justice flowing from the fact that an application for reconsideration, pursuant to S.86 of the Act, was considered by the same Umpire that rendered the initial decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
Decision 23724
Full Text of Decision 23724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0648.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
Decision 20707A
Full Text of Decision 20707A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
As the employer, who is an interested party to these proceedings, was never afforded the opportunity to make submissions to the Umpire, I am exercising the powers given to an Umpire pursuant to s.86 to rescind my decision. The matter is to be set down for a new hearing before the Umpire.
Decision 19544A
Full Text of Decision 19544A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Nor does the ground based on s.15 of the Charter involve any "new facts" under s.86 or demonstrate any mistake of fact in my decision of 4-91. In relying on s.15 at this time, the claimant is simply raising a legal argument which he could have raised before me at the hearing.
This is not a proper ground for the exercise by me of a power of rescission of my decision pursuant to s.86. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in no way constitutes "new facts". Cases already decided cannot be constantly reopened because of laterlegal interpretations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
charter |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 18610A
Full Text of Decision 18610A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
This is an application for review under s.86. Without determining what is included in "material fact", it is a fact that my decision is in conflict with many other CUBs. Administrative guidelines and judicial principles should enjoy consistency. Consistency should apply here.
Decision A-0300.89
Full Text of Decision A-0300.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Claimant requests reconsideration of Umpire's decision while his case is pending before the Federal Court. As per VON FINDENIGG and CUB 8980A, it is too late for one to avail himself of s. 86 once a request for review has been initiated before the FC. Dismissed by FC without comment.
Decision 16177A
Full Text of Decision 16177A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0300.89
Decision 16104A
Full Text of Decision 16104A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Case reconsidered and allowed under s.86 even though the issue was pending before the Federal Court, a matter which is not raised in the reconsideration.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
material fact |
mistake as to a |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision 14572A
Full Text of Decision 14572A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Conflicting decisions by other Umpires do not constitute new facts under s.86. An Umpire cannot himself change his decision on the basis of conflicting decisions subsequently rendered by other Umpires.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 10826A
Full Text of Decision 10826A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Claimant failed to attend the hearing because of an emergency arising in her family, 2 of her children taken to hospital on that day. This is a valid reason and under s.86 I am rescinding my decision and claimant is afforded another opportunity to attend.
Decision A-0170.80
Full Text of Decision A-0170.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Part of the settlement is for damages for breach of contract, another for compensation for loss of right to future earnings. The latter is earnings but no evidence to quantify the 2 portions. Since the Umpire is empowered under s.86 to hear new evidence, case returned for rehearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 15115
Full Text of Decision 15115
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
requiring a document |
|
Summary:
Pursuant to s.85, an Umpire may request that a person attend. That provision pales to insignificance when compared with a real power of subpoena. It does not even accord the power to compel attendance, much less to compel the bringing of documents.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
