Decision 14805

Summary:

The Board misconceived its function. Observations in part responsible for this. They are misnamed as observations. They are really a presentation of one side of the case. They are an argument slanted to support the Commission's decision. They lack objectivity. [p. 6]

---

Summary:

This misconceives the precedent value of CUB 5612 where the Umpire did not believe claimant's contention that he had a health problem. It does not stand for the proposition that, in every case, a medical certificate is required. Lack of certificate is not conclusive. No reason to doubt claimant's statements that her ulcer was being aggravated by work situation. She gave an entirely credible explanation as to why she did not seek medical certificate. Her actions after quitting show she was not merely making up an excuse.

---

Summary:

While the policy of the Act is to support those who are searching for work, that policy is implemented only in accordance with the legislative text of the Act. It is not enough to fit within the policy; a claimant must also fit within its legislative terms. [p. 10]

---

Summary:

While the policy of the Act is to support those who are searching for work, that policy is implemented only in accordance with the legislative text of the Act. It is not enough to fit within the policy; a claimant must also fit within its legislative terms. [p. 10]

---

Summary:

Claimant argues that a double standard is being applied because earnings she makes doing freelance typing are treated as earnings for benefit purposes but not for insurable employment [p. 10]. She is right. However, that is how the Act operates. [p. 11]

---

Summary:

UIC leaflet indicates that notice of hearing to be received 1 week in advance. Formal notice not received until 2_days before hearing. Nothing indicates that she was not able to make her presentation despite shortness of notice. Reg. 66(1) would appear to have been met. [p. 11]

---