| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
Summary:
A review of the main question at issue (in business on his own) is not sufficient to conclude by inference (after having decided that the claimant was unemployed) that he had not made false statements. That is another issue the Board had to deal with.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
To the extent that the Board seems to have given the Commission the burden of proving the unemployment, it has clearly erred in law. It also erred as to the degree of proof required while ruling that such proof must be convincing enough, i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
To the extent that the Board seems to have given the Commission the burden of proving the unemployment, it has clearly erred in law. It also erred as to the type of proof required while ruling that such proof must be convincing enough, i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.
