Decision A0352.11

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A0352.11 Goulet  Mainville. Robert M.  French 2012-02-24
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Majority - Returned to the ump  No Commission  -

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires  jurisdiction  not exercised 


Te Commission is claiming from the claimant an $11,151.00 overpayment under the EIA for the January to September 2006 period on the ground that, during that period, the claimant was self-employed or engaged in the operation of a business. She is also seeking a $5,000.00 penalty for alleged false or misleading statements made by the claimant. The FCA determined that the only criticism the parties can make of the Umpire is that he did not set aside the decision of the BOR on the ground that it had not explicitly stated its conclusion that the claimant’s business activities were not his principal means of livelihood during the concerned benefit period. At first sight, based on a reading of its decision, the BOR does not seem to have completely taken into account the approach and principles set out in Martens. I would allow in part the application for judicial review and set aside that part of the umpire’s decision, respecting the claimant’s unemployment status, and refer the matter back to the Chief Umpire or his or her designate for a new determination.

Date modified: