| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized BOR for not accepting his version of the facts. Umpire refused to intervene, ruling that banking of hours had taken place and that the scheme is designed to defraud EI. Claimant alleged before FCA that BOR and Umpire had refused to consider certain evidence. Court summarily denied the claimant's request for a judicial review, ruling that the evidence presented by the claimant was not sufficient to challenge the findings of the Umpire or BOR.
