| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Laid off in 1-90. Recalled for a short period in 2-90 at which time he booked 2 weeks holiday scheduled to begin in 10-90. Vacation pay paid in 7-90 while still on layoff. PREUSCHE and MCMASTER examined. The statement that "the unemployed cannot be expected to go on vacation" is applicable here.
PREUSCHE & McMASTER referred to. The Commission submits that the words "in respect of" in the former ss. 58(13) and the word "for" in ss. 58(8) have the same meaning. I agree with that submission. I am satisfied that the legislator did not intend to change the meaning of the regulation.
| 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.
