Decision A-0258.01
Full Text of Decision A-0258.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The claimant submitted an application to amend the Umpire's decision in light of facts she claimed were new. Application dismissed by the Umpire, who found that the claimant did not show that the evidence she was trying to introduce could not have been obtained by a diligent person at the time of her testimony before the BOR. Reference made to Chan (A-0185.94). Application for judicial review summarily dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A-0145.00
Full Text of Decision A-0145.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Held that since the facts in question existed before the hearing was held in the first case, they only qualify as "new facts" if they could not reasonably have been discovered by the applicant before the first decision was rendered and, if they had been adduced, they would have been decisive of the issue that the Umpire had to decide. Reference made to the FCA decision in Chan (A-0185.94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 48476A
Full Text of Decision 48476A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0258.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 39704B
Full Text of Decision 39704B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0145.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0728.97
Full Text of Decision A-0728.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Umpire dismissed request to produce a doctor's certificate, saying that the evidence had been available during the hearing before the BOR, that the claimant had not tried to present a certificate at that time and that it did not constitute a new fact. FCA stated that the fundamental condition for new evidence is that it be material, in that it is likely to have a major impact on the resolution of the issue, if not to provide a complete solution.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 35972
Full Text of Decision 35972
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Evidence produced by claimant to Umpire would have been available well before the hearing date if he had acted expeditiously. It is well established that evidence that was available at the time of the hearing but not produced cannot be considered as a "new fact" within the meaning of S.86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
evidence new |
amendment of decision |
|
Decision 32724A
Full Text of Decision 32724A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Ruled that the facts submitted by the beneficiary were only a different version of facts already known. The information provided by the beneficiary contained no new facts, and could not provide grounds for intervention by the umpire. Reference to FCA ruling in Conita Chan (A-185-94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A-0084.95
Full Text of Decision A-0084.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Umpire did not identify any reviewable error in reaching his decision to reverse the BOR's decision. He merely disagreed with the factual findings of the Board, something he was not at liberty to do as there was sufficient evidence before the Board uponwhich its decision could be properly based.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 26619
Full Text of Decision 26619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0084.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 29529
Full Text of Decision 29529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Consistent test with new evidence is to establish not only that the evidence was not known or did not exist at the time of the hearing before the Board, but that it could not have been known even after a diligent search.
Evidence of a prosecution which may or may not survive the test of the preliminary hearing is not a conviction. A criminal conviction may be receivable as evidence, especially if the conviction is the result of a plea of guilty, which is evidence of "judicial admission".
Decision A-0620.94
Full Text of Decision A-0620.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Umpire was clearly in error to think that he could accept evidence that was not before the Board of Referees: see TAYLOR. That being said we do not believe that it was really new evidence in this case, but rather a reiteration by the claimant of facts already before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 25663
Full Text of Decision 25663
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0620.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 26821
Full Text of Decision 26821
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Commission objected to the claimant filing before the Umpire a transcript of the hearing before the Board, some 37 pages. The Commission was aware of claimant's request for the tape more than a year earlier and could have obtained its own copy. I agreed to the filing of the transcript.
Decision 26616
Full Text of Decision 26616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
S. 86 is not intended to enable a party to re-argue the appeal before an Umpire unless there is new evidence of a decisive nature which was not available at the time of the hearing. Accordingly, I have not taken the information supplied by the employer into account in arriving at my decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
unhappy atmosphere |
|
Decision A-0185.94
Full Text of Decision A-0185.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Reconsideration by an Umpire on the basis of new facts should remain a rare commodity. UI claimants are given an exceptionally large number of opportunities to challenge UI decisions and Umpires should be careful not to let the reconsideration process be abused by careless or ill-advised claimants.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 26178
Full Text of Decision 26178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Employer was advised by counsel not to attend Board hearing due to proceedings pending before the Labour Relations Board. CUB 21410 referred to. He had an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing but declined to participate. He cannot now come forward and offer "new" evidence to an Umpire.
Decision 23925
Full Text of Decision 23925
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Question: Whether I would have to find an error in law to return the matter to the Board. S. 86 provides that the Umpire may rescind or amend the decision on the presentation of new facts. It has also been interpreted to allow an Umpire to return the matter to the Board on the basis of new facts.
Decision 22525A
Full Text of Decision 22525A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
My function as an Umpire is strictly a matter of judicial review and I have no jurisdiction to retry the matter as a trial de novo and to entertain evidence which was not entered before the Board. I must not sit as a judge de novo and must turn back evidence not before the Board to another Board.
Decision 23440
Full Text of Decision 23440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
It is not for the Umpire to rehear the evidence or to order a new hearing simply because one of the parties thinks there was evidence that could have been presented to the Board but, by the choice of that party, was not presented.
Decision 23146
Full Text of Decision 23146
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
It has been held that s. 86 does not restrict each particular entity, i.e., Commission, Board or Umpire to rescinding or amending only its own specific decisions, but that any decision made by any entity may be affected by the presentation of new facts, or on the other listed grounds.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 23095
Full Text of Decision 23095
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Counsel sought to adduce new evidence in the form of an affidavit of claimant's accountant. I consider the judgment in BARTONE does not accord with the majority in BRIÈRE which clearly envisaged that the power in s. 102 as being related only to the power of those bodies to amend their own decisions.
Decision 22638
Full Text of Decision 22638
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
TAYLOR held that an Umpire on an appeal from a decision of the Board cannot receive new evidence going to the merits of a claim unless such evidence was sought to be adduced in the proceedings before the Board and was improperly excluded. The latter exception does not apply in the present case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 22477
Full Text of Decision 22477
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
I note that by a letter to the Umpire claimant indicates that she is now available from 2 p.m. to midnight and on weekends. That change may only be relevant for a determination by the Commission of the appropriate date to terminate her disentitlement, a matter not raised in this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
transportation difficulties |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
|
Decision 21070A
Full Text of Decision 21070A
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Decision 21648
Full Text of Decision 21648
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
One last matter to consider: part of the Deferred Salary Payment Plan which had not been presented to the Board was added to the file by the Commission. Based on TAYLOR, I do not feel that I am entitled to consider any evidence which was not before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
deferred salary leave plans |
|
|
Decision 20834A
Full Text of Decision 20834A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear that evidence which could have been brought before the Board is not "new evidence" which can be introduced before an Umpire. The case cannot be remade at that stage and is not in the nature of a process "de novo".
Decision 21410
Full Text of Decision 21410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The evidence could have been introduced at the Board hearing. The employer, for whatever reason, did not attend the Board hearing and offered no explanation for his absence. Rather, he chose to raise a different version before the Umpire. He is precluded from doing so.
Decision 20401
Full Text of Decision 20401
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
I do not think that TAYLOR applies here. Where the Board's decision has been quashed and the Umpire decides to render the decision the Board should have made rather than to send the appeal back for a rehearing, I think ss. 78(1) intended that Umpires might hear new evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Decision 20192
Full Text of Decision 20192
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
She is asking that her disqualification be reduced. No new facts should be introduced or received at the Umpire level and particularly when one considers that this was information fully within her knowledge at the time of initial hearing. Not to be referred back to the Board.
Decision 14246A
Full Text of Decision 14246A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0681.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision A-0681.90
Full Text of Decision A-0681.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Following the Board's decision, a letter was received from the employer. The Umpire used it to allow the case. He was not entitled to do so. Those proceedings were not de novo. They were an "appeal". S. 80 and 81 do not empower the Umpire to receive new evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 19724
Full Text of Decision 19724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Commission urged that the settlement of the grievance not be taken into consideration in review of the Board's decision. While I agree that in the normal course events following the decision are not relevant, s.86 permits the Umpire to take account of facts known only after.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 19715
Full Text of Decision 19715
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
In analyzing the employer's further material, some of it must be rejected because it amounts to new evidence. The Umpire is not expected to conduct a new trial: he can only review the decision of the Board. Unable to consider a new affidavit which was not before the Board.
Decision 18860
Full Text of Decision 18860
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
As an Umpire, I cannot conclude on the basis of "new" evidence that the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for the relevant material before it: see OLIVIER.
Decision 18831
Full Text of Decision 18831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Although it may be that the evidence was not known to the CEIC at the time of the Board's hearing nor could the CEIC have foreseen that it would be required to respond to that submitted by claimant, it would be beyond my function to admit it and conclude that the Board erred.
Decision 18582
Full Text of Decision 18582
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Unfortunately for the claimant, I cannot accept the production of the 2 additional exhibits (job search list and letter from school) as further evidence for his appeal. It is not my function to rehear the case that should have been put to the Board.
Decision A-0369.88
Full Text of Decision A-0369.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Umpire was entitled under s. 86 to receive and consider as additional evidence the agreement reached before the Labour Board, which was not before the Board of Referees. Since new facts may be presented to an Umpire under s. 86, she was correct in allowing claimant's appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 14800
Full Text of Decision 14800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0369.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 15591
Full Text of Decision 15591
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
For this appeal, claimant submitted a letter from doctor stating that he would have been capable of light duties as of a certain date. Where new facts have been presented, Umpires are empowered under s.86 to amend decisions of Boards.
Decision 15581
Full Text of Decision 15581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Job search list for period commencing 30-11. Board's decision given 25-11. In deciding if the Board's decision was correct, I may only consider the evidence applicable to the period before the hearing. The fact that claimant began a job search after is not relevant to this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
employment left |
|
Decision 15103
Full Text of Decision 15103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Claimant endeavoured to file 2 documents to show that the money she received was not wages. This is not a new trial but an appeal from determination made by Board based on material before it. I did not accept these documents. Case referred back to Board.
Decision 14984
Full Text of Decision 14984
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Teacher attempting to prove availability for the summer months. Moreover, the evidence of the job search activity was not before the Board and therefore cannot constitute part of the record for the purposes of this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
Decision 14396
Full Text of Decision 14396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
It is irrelevant that since [the Board's decision], the claimant has changed his mind [by removing restrictions] as I can only decide whether or not the Board made a correct decision on the basis of information relating to the period which preceded its decision.
Decision 13050
Full Text of Decision 13050
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Argument before Umpire: voluntarily left because she had been sexually harassed, which she had never mentioned at board when employer attended; allegation not admissible at this stage.
Decision 12447
Full Text of Decision 12447
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Only in exceptional circumstances can new evidence be brought before the Umpire: if brought to light only after the hearing before the Board and is of sufficient importance. Here, the opportunity was given to attend the hearing before the Board but claimant failed to appear.
Decision 11647
Full Text of Decision 11647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Claimant was able to obtain further medical evidence sometime after the Board's hearing. He insisted that his case be heard by the Umpire instead of reexamination by the Board. As such evidence was not available at the Board's hearing, it is proper thatthe case be referred back to the Board.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
S.86 contemplates that new evidence may be adduced before the Umpire. It is thus often necessary to refer the appeal back to the Board. However, s.86 does not say that the Commission, Board or Umpire may receive new evidence only if the decision was given by it, but any decision. [p._5-6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision A-0560.84
Full Text of Decision A-0560.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Even if the CEIC was denied a hearing as to whether new evidence by claimant was receivable by the Umpire, it has suffered no prejudice. All objections could properly be raised at the re-hearing before the Board. The Umpire had the requisite authority to order the Board to re-hear the appeal.
Decision A-0308.81
Full Text of Decision A-0308.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
The Umpire may not rely on new evidence to conclude that the board committed an error under para. 80(c).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
length of hearing |
|
Decision 63144
Full Text of Decision 63144
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
The claimant's counsel asked to bring forward a witness whom he had wanted to bring forward before the Board of Referees. The judge stated that it was established in case law that the appeal from a Board's decision to an Umpire must normally be confined to the record before the Board and that the counsel, who was present at the BOR hearing, could have brought this witness before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
employment defined |
|
Decision 24324
Full Text of Decision 24324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
Claimant's request is to reopen the hearing and hear one witness. No substantive reason is given as to why the witness could not be called before the Board. It is not suggested what this new evidence may be. This would not be a proper exercise of my discretion and would be contrary to s. 80.
Decision 20677A
Full Text of Decision 20677A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
Counsel sought to present new witnesses. These were known at the time of the Board hearing but they were allegedly unable to testify due to illness. He admitted that no adjournment had been sought. I refused to hear the witnesses, such extraordinary procedure not being permitted.
Decision 17150
Full Text of Decision 17150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
The Board ruled that there was no proof of misconduct. On appeal, the employer was prepared to produce persons as witnesses. I declined to hear new evidence on credibility which is a matter for the Board. This was available at time of the Board hearing.Not entitled to have it heard now.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 10889
Full Text of Decision 10889
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Summary:
Claimant wanted to testify under oath before the Umpire. S.80 does not provide for a new trial but for an appeal. Credibility was for the Board and is not for the Umpire. Of course, if new evidence were discovered since the hearing of the Board, I wouldhear it or send it to the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
church minister |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
