| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
S.41-43 are provisions in a statute the object of which is to establish a scheme for UI for insured persons who through no fault of their own lose their employment. Not intended to benefit those who lose their employment by their own actions.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Expressions used in s.41 are not technical and should not be approached as if technical... Participation in illegal strike is misconduct in relation to employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
Summary:
Participation of claimant in the illegal strike of hospital workers was his own misconduct... Misconduct by many is no less one's misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The fact that the collective agreement had expired was irrelevant to whether the strike was illegal, being in violation of the Ontario legislation. The Board, having based its conclusion that the loss of work was not due to misconduct on an irrelevant consideration, erred in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Summary:
The strike was illegal in that it was in violation of Ontario legislation. The fact that the collective agreement had expired before the strike began appears irrelevant to whether strike illegal.
Strike being illegal, claimant's participation in it would be misconduct on his part in the ordinary sense of the term. It would also be misconduct in relation to his employment. The fact that many persons misconduct themselves does not make misconduct any less one's own.
