| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
An acquittal on a criminal charge of driving with impaired faculties would not be binding on the Commission in finding that claimant had lost his job by reason of misconduct, the evidence being substantially different. [obiter]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for drinking. Judgment pending before criminal court. CEIC requested additional information. He consulted a lawyer and was advised not to reply as this might incriminate him. He decided not to send cards until case decided 16 months later. Didnot act reasonably.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
applicability |
general |
|
Summary:
It is not merely a procedural requirement but, as has been frequently pointed out, the Commission requires these cards at regular intervals to determine whether conditions of entitlement continue to exist.
