| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
It was not claimant who knew how to make the candy. While 25 hours a week is a significant percentage of a 40-hour work week, some of this must have been done on weekends or after hours. Possible to do this on a "side-endeavour" and still be available. [p. 10]
Amount of time spent in the business endeavour is perhaps the most telling factor. CUB 5454 quoted. In addition to number of hours, the time of day or week in which work is usually done is also relevant. [p. 9]
Factors as found in CUB 5454 examined. The fact that an attempt to establish a business fails is not an inescapable situation of minor extent. It is a factor to be weighed with others. Continuity of business is relevant. [p. 11]
| 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.
| 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]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There is a tendency for the CEIC to argue that the Umpire's jurisdiction under s.80 is comparable to that of the Federal Court under s.28. One must not lose sight of the fact that there is nothing in the Federal Court Act comparable to s.78, 81 and 86. Jurisdiction to be assessed in the context.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
The Board addressed its mind only to whether claimant engaged in own business; it did not consider whether activities minor in extent. It therefore failed to exercise its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. [p. 8]
