Summary of Issue: Not Exercised

Decision A0352.11 Full Text of Decision A0352.11

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.

Decision A0221.11 Full Text of Decision A0221.11

The claimant worked while in receipt of EI benefits. He failed to declare earnings from this employment. The earnings were allocated in accordance with the EIR. The Commission issued a penalty and a “very serious” notice of violation. The Board allowed the appeal, without providing reasons, in respect of the penalty and notice of violation. The Commission appealed to the Umpire. The Umpire found that the only issue before him was the issue of the penalty. The Umpire failed to deal with the issue of the notice of violation and whether it was properly imposed. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review and held that the Umpire erred in failing to consider the issue of the notice of violation.

Decision A0004.10 Full Text of Decision A0004.10

The claimant was dismissed due to his own misconduct following accusations of vandalism, and was therefore disqualified for an indefinite period. The claimant denied the alleged acts and following a court appearance, he was acquitted. The AGC's application for judicial review is dismissed on the basis that the BOR was entitled to conclude that the claimant did not commit the alleged acts, and the Umpire properly refused to intervene in a question of credibility.

Decision 28479A Full Text of Decision 28479A

At the hearing of the Commission's appeal, the Umpire is advised that the claimant had ceded her assets (bankruptcy). The Umpire concluded that he had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that the Commission should stay its claim.

Decision 24011A Full Text of Decision 24011A

Claimant seeks clarification on the ground that I failed to rule on the allegation of the Charter violation. The Commission argues that I have no jurisdiction under s. 86. SEVERUD referred to. The Charter issue was fairly raised by claimant and within my jurisdiction to entertain. To be considered.

Decision A-0346.93 Full Text of Decision A-0346.93

Ordinarily, in setting aside the Umpire's decision and referring it back, we might direct that it be referred on to a Board of Referees as the issue was not resolved (error of law). However, the Commission requests that the Umpire make the necessary finding as, under s.81, he may.

Decision 22558 Full Text of Decision 22558

Refer to: A-0346.93

Decision A-0715.87 Full Text of Decision A-0715.87

The Umpire noted that the Board had totally ignored the issue raised by ss. 43(2). He set aside the Board's decision, making no direction or other finding. This failure amounted to a refusal of jurisdiction.

Decision 14001 Full Text of Decision 14001

Refer to: A-0715.87

Decision A-1157.83 Full Text of Decision A-1157.83

Case allowed by Umpire due to breach of natural justice [without deciding on the merit of the case]. The matter is referred back to an Umpire with the direction that he refer the matter back to a differently constituted Board.

Decision A-1650.83 Full Text of Decision A-1650.83

Appeal allowed by Umpire without questioning the merit of the case on the basis that one Board member was biased. Umpire's decision set aside and case to be referred back to a differently constituted Board for rehearing in accordance with the Umpire's directions.