Summary of Issue: Claimants Treated Differently

Decision 19043 Full Text of Decision 19043

This Board however made its decision, as it had to, on the evidence which was before it. That does not, of course, preclude another Board from arriving at a different conclusion depending on what evidence is before it and what view it takes of that evidence.

Decision 16189 Full Text of Decision 16189

Severance pay is earnings. I see no merit in the allegation of discrimination that 3 co-workers who had retired at the same time were entitled to UI. No evidence as to why and under which circumstances they would have received UI. Each case presents a different situation.

Decision 16156 Full Text of Decision 16156

Severance pay at issue. Whether I agree with the interpretation is not the primary issue. The issue is that the CEIC must be consistent in its interpretation with respect to all employees similarly situated. The Board's decision is not erroneous but is nevertheless rescinded.

Decision 15611 Full Text of Decision 15611

Disqualified 4 weeks: driver's licence lost; impaired driving. It has always been a requirement of natural justice that individuals in like circumstances must be treated equally by the law and Charter. If this case is identical to that referred to, disqualification to be reduced.

Decision 15560 Full Text of Decision 15560

4 claimants disentitled due to labour dispute, 3 cases allowed by Board and Commission did not appeal. 4th claimant entitled to equality before the law as per Canadian Bill and to equal benefit being similarly situated as per Charter. Case allowed on another ground as well.

Decision 14404 Full Text of Decision 14404

2 partners, one found by board to be unemployed, the other not; both were in same situation. Principle of consistency and administration of system jeopardized. Awkward situation. Nothing to do but recommend cancellation of overpayment.

Decision 12741A Full Text of Decision 12741A

Issue: number of insured weeks. Any statute, by necessity, must impose dividing lines. This is to enable the legislation to operate in as consistent a way as possible, so that it treats all individuals falling within the same category in a similar manner. No discretion to waive that requirement.

Decision 12202 Full Text of Decision 12202

Fact that Commission has no resources to place this burden [para. 14(1)] on all claimants on daily basis does not change these provisions. Drivers speeding on roads is not a defence.

Decision 11242 Full Text of Decision 11242

One principle sacred to the rule of law and its proper functioning is that of consistency. If citizens are equal before the law, the law should be equally applied to each. Whether good or defective law, its interpretation should be the same for all. Nota rule of perfection.

Decision 11227 Full Text of Decision 11227

If there are countless claimants who would not pass a ss.14(a) test if put to it, it does not follow that 14(a) should not apply to those put to the test and who fail to make it. Disparities in enforcement processes cannot justify departures from the rule of law. Institutions created by humans and administered by humans are never fool-proof. Abuses can never be totally eradicated. Administrative procedures can never be totally perfect. Perceived unfairness can never be totally avoided.

Decision 11047 Full Text of Decision 11047

The claimant's son left his employment with the same employer on the same day as his father. In the case of the son, the Commission imposed a disqualification of only 3 weeks. There is no reason for treating the father any differently. Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks.

Decision 11017 Full Text of Decision 11017

All claimants subject to test in s. 14(a). Regardless of fact that because of administrative restrictions few people must continually undergo test, rule still the same.

Decision 09088 Full Text of Decision 09088

When rigid time requirements are prescribed in a statute (as they sometimes must be), it will always be the case that some individuals will feel unjustly dealt with because they almost, but not quite, meet those requirements. [p. 5]

Decision A-0020.82 Full Text of Decision A-0020.82

The Umpire would have reversed the Board's decision merely because other decisions of Boards were not appealed by the CEIC. They were made by Boards differently constituted on the particular facts before them. No support for a conclusion that the decision was made capriciously.