Decision A0403.07
Full Text of Decision A0403.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
Unavailability of Transcript |
|
Summary:
The Umpire could not use the unavailability of the transcript as a ground for setting aside the Board's decision unless it could be shown that the absence of the tape or transcript effectively denied the claimant her right of appeal before the Umpire. There is no such prejudice in this case as the claimant made the same argument before the Umpire. The Court referred to its prior decision in Valladolid (A-283-03).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision A0144.09
Full Text of Decision A0144.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
|
Summary:
The claimant made seven false or misleading representations claiming he had not worked nor earned income over a fourteen week period from January 2006 to April 2006. The Commission imposed a penalty under s. 38(1) of the EIA and issued a notice of a serious violation under s. 7.1 of the EIA. The BOR upheld the decision of the Commission. The Umpire allowed the appeal, deciding that the Commission was precluded from assessing a penalty under s. 38 of the EIA because it had made no ruling on an allocation of earnings. Furthermore, the Umpire held that he had no jurisdiction to consider the matter of an allocation. The FCA ruled that the Umpire seized himself of an issue that was not before him and that an allocation of earnings is not a precondition to the imposition of a penalty under s. 38(1) of the EIA.
Decision 26895
Full Text of Decision 26895
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board's task was to weigh the evidence and they chose to accept that of the claimant in preference to that of her employer. In doing so, it carried out the duty which was incumbent upon it to perform. It was neither a capricious nor perverse finding in light of the evidence they had heard.
Decision 26859
Full Text of Decision 26859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board placed undue reliance on claimant's friend when it concluded that claimant was willing to abandon the course. It cost $3,500 for each of 3 sessions; in the absence of evidence about a refund policy, it was perverse for the Board to accept this based only on the credibility of claimant's friend.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
factors to consider |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
substantial fees paid |
|
Decision 23503
Full Text of Decision 23503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0728.93
Decision A-0728.93
Full Text of Decision A-0728.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
We agree firstly that the Board of Referees based its decision on irrelevant considerations and secondly, that the claimant has not proven that she was unemployed; the Umpire committed no error which would permit us to intervene.
Decision 23101
Full Text of Decision 23101
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0640.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision A-0640.93
Full Text of Decision A-0640.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire substituted the Board's view of the facts for his own without asking himself whether there was evidence in the record before the Board to support its conclusion and without first finding that the Board had erred in principle in reaching its conclusion. See McCARTHY.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision A-0115.94
Full Text of Decision A-0115.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is evident from the Board's decision that both the majority and minority view had been canvassed. Although the majority could have ruled otherwise, they chose to disbelieve claimant as to the cause for leaving his employment. The Umpire could not substitute the opinion of the majority for hers.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 24013
Full Text of Decision 24013
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0115.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 25193
Full Text of Decision 25193
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board's decision was made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard to the material before it. It failed to indicate why it did not accept what the doctor stated as to the period of claimant's incapacity, and nor did it speak of the claimant's admission that he is incapable of working.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
incapacity |
Decision 23769
Full Text of Decision 23769
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
There is no evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that the vacation monies were held in trust by the employer for the claimant. Absent such evidence, I find that the Board based its decision on a capricious finding of fact. That being the case, the decision of the Board cannot stand.
Decision 21933
Full Text of Decision 21933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Finding the claimant unavailable for the whole period is not supported by the evidence and is flatly contradicted by one exhibit. A finding that she was unavailable during the whole period is perverse in the face of her application to a specific employer for full-time work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Decision 19780
Full Text of Decision 19780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Electrician sharing his job, 9 weeks at work and 9 weeks off. Claimant has stated that he did not carry out a job search. In light of this, the Board's implicit finding that he had proved his availability is capricious and should be overturned. [p._11]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
sharing employment |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 17461
Full Text of Decision 17461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
A waitress was asked to dress less decently. In the view of the Board, she was justified in leaving under the Charter. An absurd finding since she continued to work 8 hours a week at the same location.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
ethical considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
reduction in hours |
|
Decision 17352
Full Text of Decision 17352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board found that job opportunities were unduly limited and that the wage rate requested was not realistic. However, there is nothing in the file to support such a finding of the facts, which therefore seems to me arbitrary.
Decision S-0512.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The tentative agreement was never ratified; it was followed by a lockout until a new agreement with different terms was ratified. It is patently absurd to say, as the Board did, that the tentative agreement brought to an end the labour dispute. Leave to appeal dismissed by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 14671
Full Text of Decision 14671
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0148.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision A-0148.88
Full Text of Decision A-0148.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire was justified in intervening since the Board's decision was clearly based on a perverse finding of fact, namely that the parties had postponed the observance of a plant holiday to a day the plant was closed and which was, moreover, a Sunday.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision 14045
Full Text of Decision 14045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0770.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A-0770.87
Full Text of Decision A-0770.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Umpire decided that the Board's finding was capricious and perverse. Since there was clearly evidence supporting the conclusion of the Board, the Umpire could not, under 80(c), substitute his judgment of the facts anymore than this Court under 28(1)(c).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 12814
Full Text of Decision 12814
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is not enough that the Board may have based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact. It can do that, according to the law, with impunity. To be set aside, the finding must be one made in a perverse or capricious manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Decision A-0770.85
Full Text of Decision A-0770.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
A misinterpretation of the facts by a Board does not necessarily establish a ground of appeal. An erroneous finding of fact is sufficient only if made in a perverse or capricious manner, said the Umpire [p.7]. There is no basis on which this Court couldproperly intervene with the Umpire's decision.
Decision 11324
Full Text of Decision 11324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0825.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
duration |
|
Decision 11836
Full Text of Decision 11836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0186.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0825.85
Full Text of Decision A-0825.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Determining the termination date of a course is a question of fact. Under 80(c), the Umpire could only review such a finding of fact if it was erroneous, perverse or capricious. Nothing in the record shows that this condition had been met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
duration |
|
Decision A-0186.86
Full Text of Decision A-0186.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
An Umpire may not review a finding of fact by a Board unless that finding was erroneous and made in a perverse or capricious manner. Clearly, even if the findings of fact may be questioned, it cannot be said that they are erroneous, not to mention perverse or capricious.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-1203.84
Full Text of Decision A-1203.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Record contained evidence on which board could reasonably have made these findings of fact; whether or not they were theoretically sound, the possibility that they could have been given a different reading would not allow Umpire to substitute his opinion for the board's.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Decision A-0595.84
Full Text of Decision A-0595.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Not allowed to reverse a finding of fact even if against the weight of evidence. The proper test is whether there was any evidence upon which the Board could have found as it did or whether it made any mistake of principle. [p. 5-6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0020.82
Full Text of Decision A-0020.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0258.81
Full Text of Decision A-0258.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is the finding of fact of the Board that is put into question. Such an attack is not admissible if based on mere suppositions, conjectures or possibilities and not on any clear evidence [p.7] as per Umpire. S.28 application dismissed for the reasons given by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
Decision A-0452.81
Full Text of Decision A-0452.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
Since the insured brought action against the employer for injury to reputation and received $2,000 for withdrawing the grievance, and not as salary, that sum is not equivalent to earnings, according to the Umpire. Capricious finding that may not reasonably be made from the record, according to the Court.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A0340.08
Full Text of Decision A0340.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
In this decision, the claimant wished to antedate his initial claim. The FCA decided to send the matter back to the Office of the Umpire with instructions that the claimant has not established proper motives to justify the delay in submitting his initial claim. The FCA reaffirmed the principle that an Umpire cannot intervene with respect to a question of fact unless the BOR's decision is unreasonable. In the present case, the Umpire erred as he failed to explain why the BOR's decision was unreasonable. Also, the Umpire committed an error by considering the «shortness of the delay» rather than the reasons to explain such delay.
Decision A-1036.96
Full Text of Decision A-1036.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
FCA found that in overruling the BOR unanimous decision, the Umpire did not observe the limitations the Act places on the Umpire's power of review. The BOR had refused to accept that the claimant's breaches could have constituted misconduct, regardless of the fact that the employer saw them as grounds for dismissal. Umpire could not dismiss the BOR finding simply on the basis of a line of reasoning which, in sum, merely gave greater weight to the employer's views. Claimant's application for judicial review allowed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
| misconduct |
justification |
|
|
Decision 27279
Full Text of Decision 27279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0255.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0255.95
Full Text of Decision A-0255.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
This, whether consciously or not, was a question of fact; the arbitrator could take action only on the assumption that the Board's response, in his view, was abusive, was arbitrary, or failed to take into consideration facts brought to their attention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0084.95
Full Text of Decision A-0084.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 26619
Full Text of Decision 26619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 25075
Full Text of Decision 25075
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0480.94
Decision A-0480.94
Full Text of Decision A-0480.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire erred by substituting the Board's conclusions on the facts for his own. The test for an Umpire's jurisdiction to interfere with the Board's findings of fact was stated in ROBERTS. We can find no such error on the part of the Board.
Decision 25797A
Full Text of Decision 25797A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0645.94
Decision A-0645.94
Full Text of Decision A-0645.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board concluded that claimant had not shown on a balance of probabilities that he had left his employment with just cause. The Umpire, without first making a finding pursuant to 80(c), substituted his own view of the facts for those of the Board. Bydoing so, the Umpire erred in law.
Decision A-0087.94
Full Text of Decision A-0087.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Before the Umpire could make new findings of fact he would have to conclude that the Board's decision must be set aside for reviewable error of fact. This he did not do, but instead proceeded to overrule the Board as if on appeal, substituting his own conclusions of facts based on his observations.
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 |
|
Decision 23945
Full Text of Decision 23945
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0087.94
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 |
|
Decision A-0600.93
Full Text of Decision A-0600.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
It is clear that the Umpire substituted the Board's opinion for his own. It is equally clear that he was entitled to do so if and only if he concluded that the claimant had shown that the decision of the Board had been vitiated by one of the grounds enumerated in para. 80(a), (b) and (c) of the Act.
The Umpire fell into error by substituting the Board's views of the facts for his own. Whether the quitting was voluntary or not, the referees had before them the several explanations of the claimant, and this was a conclusion of fact which was open to them on the record.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
Decision 22912
Full Text of Decision 22912
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0600.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
Decision A-1463.92
Full Text of Decision A-1463.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact reached by the Board without finding that its decision was perverse. He gave no reason for arriving at such a conclusion of perversity. The Umpire was wrong in substituting the Board's view of the facts for his own.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 21822
Full Text of Decision 21822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-1463.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 21977
Full Text of Decision 21977
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Before the Board's decision will be set aside, there must be no evidence on which the decision could have been based, a complete disregard of the relevant and credible evidence, or a perverse decision in the sense that no reasonable Board could have come to the conclusion it did.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 21690
Full Text of Decision 21690
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
With respect to any error of fact, I cannot reverse the Board on this ground unless the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact "that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it". Unable to see any such error of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 19043
Full Text of Decision 19043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
After careful examination I can say that I would not have come to the same conclusion. This however is not a ground for setting aside the Board's decision. There was evidence before the Board to reach its conclusion. Under the circumstances I have no authority to set it aside.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision 18132
Full Text of Decision 18132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
This is a borderline case and I might well have decided differently on the facts myself. However the Board had material before it upon which it could decide as it did and it had a full opportunity to hear claimant. It was entitled to come to the conclusion it did.
Decision 16233
Full Text of Decision 16233
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0128.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision A-0128.89
Full Text of Decision A-0128.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
On credibility issues and assessment of facts, an Umpire should not substitute the Board's finding for his own unless it is based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. No comments from FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 17500
Full Text of Decision 17500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
I must confess that claimant impressed me with his explanation and, if I had to make a determination, I might well have found for him. However the hearing before the Umpire is not a de novo hearing but a review of the Board's decision. Not for me to substitute my opinion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 17269
Full Text of Decision 17269
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board considered the claimant available even if he was takng courses. Even if an umpire reached the opposite conclusion, an even though the decision of the Board seems to contradict a large number of precedents, it was within its jurisdiction to make the decision it did.
Decision 16535
Full Text of Decision 16535
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
I do not believe I would have come to the same decision as the Board but that is not the basis on which I must make my decision. There was evidence upon which the Board could have either allowed or dismissed her appeal. There being such evidence, the appeal is dismissed.
Decision 16061
Full Text of Decision 16061
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Claimant's statement that he looked for work while attending full-time courses accepted by the Board. I have absolutely no doubt that I would not have come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, I cannot reach a conclusion that that finding was made in aperverse or capricious manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
health reasons |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
incapacity |
Decision 15307
Full Text of Decision 15307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Whether there was a labour dispute is a question of fact, a matter for the Board to decide. It chose to accept the facts as stated by the employer. It is not sufficient that I might have come to a different conclusion, which I would have in this case, claimant's statement being more credible.
Decision 15270
Full Text of Decision 15270
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The position of an Umpire is not to review the evidence which was before the Board and to determine if he would come to a different conclusion. It is not his function to substitute his judgment for that of the Board. If there was evidence before the Board in support of its decision, it must stand.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Decision 15271
Full Text of Decision 15271
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
I am not convinced that claimant was in fact working in real estate prior to 2-3 but the issue does not turn on convincing me of this. This was a matter of credibility for the Board. The fact I might have come to a different conclusion is of no consequence.
Decision 15156
Full Text of Decision 15156
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's finding of fact is to be upheld unless perverse or capricious. The issue before the Umpire is not whether the Commission was correct, or whether the Umpire might have reached a different conclusion from that of the Board. This is not a hearing de novo.
Decision 14835
Full Text of Decision 14835
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Borderline case. The facts available to the Board were such that either conclusion could have been reached. So long as the conclusion is not perverse or capricious, the Umpire cannot intervene, even if the Umpire, on the very same facts, might have reached a different conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
dual self-employment |
|
|
Decision 14248
Full Text of Decision 14248
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's decision must stand unless there was no evidence on which it could have been based, a complete disregard of relevant evidence or a perverse decision in that no reasonable Board could have come to the conclusion it did.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
damages |
|
|
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Decision 14076
Full Text of Decision 14076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's decision on availability could have gone either way. Border-line case. Either way might have been a perfectly valid and binding one and would have been unsassailable on review by Umpire. I might very well have decided in claimant's favour.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 13894
Full Text of Decision 13894
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
At issue is claimant's participation in the labour dispute. I doubt that I would have reached the same conclusion as the Board, and it appears that other Boards came to different conclusions in relation to the same situation. Unable to say that the Board's finding was perverse. [p.7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 13135
Full Text of Decision 13135
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpires do not have jurisdiction to alter decisions given by a Board merely because they disagree with those decisions or would have come to a different conclusion on the facts. There is no doubt that in this case I would have reached a different conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Decision 12358
Full Text of Decision 12358
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
At issue was claimant's availability while attending a course of study. Lest there be any doubt, had I been sitting as a Board I would have, without hesitation, rejected the claimant's appeal. But these are not the tests to be applied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Decision 12202
Full Text of Decision 12202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Issue was assessment of facts. May very well be that another board would have found for claimant. I admit that the opposite conclusion would have been as unassailable as this. I could not intervene either way.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Decision 12107
Full Text of Decision 12107
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Tribunal composed of Umpire not appellate court in traditional sense; rather, court supervising decisions of board. Umpire must not substitute his opinion for that of board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
reasonable period of time |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
type of work |
|
Decision 11689
Full Text of Decision 11689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Having regard to the evidence which the Board had before it at the time of its decision, although I might have come to an entirely different conclusion, I cannot find that their findings of fact were made in a perverse or capricious manner.
Decision 11078
Full Text of Decision 11078
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board's decision is not unanimous nor would I necessarily have come to same conclusion as did the majority. It is not possible to say that the decision was perverse or capricious. Whether I would have made the same finding of fact is irrelevant.
Decision 10930
Full Text of Decision 10930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
This Issue is finding of fact made by board: voluntarily left without just cause. Not impossible that I or others would have decided differently but under s. 80 this finding cannot be reversed unless it is perverse.
Decision A-0103.84
Full Text of Decision A-0103.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Board found as a fact that the net settlement was not for loss of earnings but was for loss of reputation. The Umpire erred in reversing its decision and in effect rejecting its finding of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A-0439.83
Full Text of Decision A-0439.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpire cannot substitute own opinion for board's in deciding whether, in fact, claimant was dismissed as result of own misconduct.
Decision A-1174.82
Full Text of Decision A-1174.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Evidence highly conflicting as to whether claimant worked. The Board found that he did, so he qualified for benefits. The Umpire refused to intervene. Question of fact and credibility. The Umpire did not err in not interfering with the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0429.83
Full Text of Decision A-0429.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Umpire could not substitute his own opinion concerning assessment of facts [relating to misconduct] for that of board unless there was an erroneous finding of fact made in perverse or capricious manner.
Decision A-0020.82
Full Text of Decision A-0020.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
As the wording of s.80 follows very closely that of ss.28(1) of the Federal Court Act, assistance can be obtained from the jurisprudence on the latter. It has been firmly established that the Court is not entitled to substitute its view of the facts of a case for that of the Tribunal. [p.4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0074.81
Full Text of Decision A-0074.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire may not set aside the decision of the board holding the reason given by the insured to justify delay in filing his claim to be invalid, simply because he has a different opinion.
Decision A-0075.81
Full Text of Decision A-0075.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
The Umpire may not substitute his own opinion for that of the board on the issue of proof of availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision A-0248.01
Full Text of Decision A-0248.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Proof of misconduct is first a question of fact arising from the record as a whole and including the testimony given at the hearing. The absence of the transcript of the memoranda substantially limited a full assessment of the facts by the Umpire. The Court found that the record, as constituted, did not allow it to intervene on a finding of fact, and the application for judicial review was summarily dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Decision A-0500.01
Full Text of Decision A-0500.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Was the claimant’s right to natural justice infringed because of the lenghty delay (over 3 years) in hearing his appeal? Umpire did not state the legal principle upon which he concluded that there was a denial of natural justice. The FCA states that the claimant must demonstrate that the delay was unacceptable to the point of being so oppressive as to taint the proceedings. Held that there was no evidence which would justify a remedy under the principles of administrative law.
Decision A-0506.01
Full Text of Decision A-0506.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There was evidence before the Umpire that justified the decision he made. The Court can find no factual error or no error of law that would justify its intervention. The application for judicial review was summarily dismissed.
Decision 40641D
Full Text of Decision 40641D
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0500.01
Decision 50988
Full Text of Decision 50988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0248.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Decision 50047
Full Text of Decision 50047
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0506.01
Decision A-0130.96
Full Text of Decision A-0130.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Citing Joseph (A-636-85), Langlois (A-94-95), Choinière (A-471-95) and Fakhari (A-732-95), FCA ruled that to show misconduct and the link between misconduct and employment, it is not enough to raise the filing of criminal charges not yet proven at the time of separation from employment and to rely solely on the employer's speculations, with no further verification. Commission and, subsequently, the BOR and the Umpire cannot be allowed to be satisfied with an unverified, one-sided version of the facts from the employer regarding acts that, at the time the employer's decision was made, were merely unproven allegations. Commission can discharge its burden of proof more easily if the employer 's decision is made after the preliminary inquiry and, even more so, if it is made after the trial.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0732.95
Full Text of Decision A-0732.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Relying on Jewell (A-236-94), Umpire held that the claimant's failure to be truthful constitutes misconduct. The FCA was of the view that Jewell was not accurately reflecting the jurisprudence which had grown up around the concept of misconduct and that it could no longer be considered of any precedential value. An employer's subjective appreciation of the type of misconduct which warrants dismissal for just cause cannot be deemed binding on a BOR. The FCA did not believe that an employer's mere assurance that it believes the conduct in question is misconduct, and that it was the reason for termination of the employment, satisfies the onus of proof which rests on the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 26973
Full Text of Decision 26973
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0133.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Decision A-0133.95
Full Text of Decision A-0133.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The majority of the members of the Board based their decision on the evidence as it had been presented to them and the notes of the dissenting member concur with this sufficiently. The Court has determined that the umpire was not in a position to contest their conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Decision 27031
Full Text of Decision 27031
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0190.95
Decision A-0190.95
Full Text of Decision A-0190.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The findings of the BOR are on credibility. They had the unique opportunity of hearing and assessing the credibility of the appellant. Unless the Board erred under S.80 of the Act, an Umpire should not intervene in the appeal process. The FCA did not disturb the Umpire's decision.
Decision 31899
Full Text of Decision 31899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0130.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 26619
Full Text of Decision 26619
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0084.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0084.95
Full Text of Decision A-0084.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0509.94
Full Text of Decision A-0509.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire reversed that conclusion (finding based on credibility relating to a suit for wrongful dismissal and a 3-year antedate), one of mixed fact and law, without giving any indication that the Board had committed legal error in reaching its conclusion. He committed reversible error in doing so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
Decision A-0087.94
Full Text of Decision A-0087.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in not having regard to whether the alleged error made by the Board was properly reviewable. The Umpire should have considered whether, on the evidence before it, a Board could reasonably have reached the conclusion it did even if he might have reached a different conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 23945
Full Text of Decision 23945
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0087.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0085.94
Full Text of Decision A-0085.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The application is allowed, the decision of the Umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to him to be decided on the basis that the decision of the Board was not vitiated by any error of the kind mentioned in s. 80 of the UI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Decision 23944
Full Text of Decision 23944
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0085.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Decision A-0023.94
Full Text of Decision A-0023.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire found no error on the part of the Board and, indeed, expressed agreement with the conclusion that claimant had voluntarily quit without just cause. He nevertheless rescinded the disqualification. In the absence of a finding of error, he has no jurisdiction to vary the Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 23731
Full Text of Decision 23731
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0023.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision A-1669.92
Full Text of Decision A-1669.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision was not erroneous in law, according to the Umpire, nor capricious or perverse. The Umpire's decision should therefore be quashed, and the matter decided anew while taking for granted that the Board's decision was based on fact and law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
Decision 22114
Full Text of Decision 22114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1669.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
Decision A-0018.93
Full Text of Decision A-0018.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It could not be said that the Board of Referees had committed any error of law in rendering their decision. It followed that the Chief Umpire could not, without exceeding his jurisdiction, set aside its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 12129
Full Text of Decision 12129
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0707.86
Decision A-0707.86
Full Text of Decision A-0707.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
According to the Board, 8 out of 10 employees had been recalled, consequently ending the strike. As per the Umpire, it was 8 out of 18. The evidence did not indicate that the Board committed an error of the type specified in 80(c) which could be a basis for Umpire to intervene.
Decision A-0766.85
Full Text of Decision A-0766.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire set aside the Board's decision, being of the opinion that claimant did not have good cause for the whole delay in making a claim. Held that the Board did not err in law nor base its decision on an erroneous and capricious finding of fact.
Decision 11169
Full Text of Decision 11169
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0766.85
Decision 11210
Full Text of Decision 11210
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It has been clearly established that a strict interpretation must be given to s.80 and that an Umpire should not interfere with the Board's decision unless it clearly infringes one of the provisions of that section.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There is a tendency for the CEIC to argue that the Umpire's jurisdiction under s.80 is comparable to that of the Federal Court under s.28. One must not lose sight of the fact that there is nothing in the Federal Court Act comparable to s.78, 81 and 86. Jurisdiction to be assessed in the context.
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision A-0595.84
Full Text of Decision A-0595.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
There are 3 conditions precedent to 80(c): (a) an erroneous finding of fact; (b) made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for material; and (c) the decision must be based on the erroneous finding. [p._4-5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-1239.82
Full Text of Decision A-1239.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, claimant was unemployed even though he worked the full week at his brother's new gas station, which he did in the evening without any pay in the hope of creating a job for himself. Judgment reversed, decision of board was not vitiated by any of the errors in s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision A-1261.83
Full Text of Decision A-1261.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
An Umpire is bound, on appeal from a Board's decision, to deal with it on the grounds prescribed by s.80. He is not entitled simply to substitute his decision for that of the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
earnings |
|
Decision A-0548.83
Full Text of Decision A-0548.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the Umpire substituted his opinoin for that of the board in respect of whether [there had been a change in duties] that could justify leaving voluntarily. He therefore exceeded the power conferred on him by s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
appeal system |
calculation of delay |
|
| umpires |
judgment in written form |
a requirement |
|
Decision A-0813.82
Full Text of Decision A-0813.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire reassessed reasons for delay and reversed assessment of facts in order to allow antedating. Umpire can reverse decision of a board only where there is one of the errors described in s. 80.
Decision A-0852.82
Full Text of Decision A-0852.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire was of opinion that board had been too harsh in refusing antedating, since insured had acted reasonably. Judgment reversed because Umpire may intervene only if board committed one of the errors described in s. 80.
Decision A-0720.81
Full Text of Decision A-0720.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire reversed the board's decision after having the insured testify and assessing his credibility. Matter referred back to Umpire because he may set aside decision of a board only where decision is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0636.81
Full Text of Decision A-0636.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
An Umpire may allow an appeal from a decision of a board only for one of the reasons set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0547.81
Full Text of Decision A-0547.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
An Umpire may allow an appeal from a decision of a board only where the decision of the board is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0437.81
Full Text of Decision A-0437.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Decision set aside and matter referred back to Umpire. Decision of board may be set aside only where it is vitiated by error set out in s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
Decision A-0453.81
Full Text of Decision A-0453.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Umpire may allow appeal only in cases where board's decision is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0357.81
Full Text of Decision A-0357.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Where claimant left voluntarily without just cause, Umpire may not substitute his opinion for that of the board unless the board's decision is vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision A-0768.80
Full Text of Decision A-0768.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Decision set aside and matter referred back to Umpire to be decided on assumption that appeal may be allowed only for one of the reasons set out in s. 80.
Decision A-0454.02
Full Text of Decision A-0454.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The Commission presented only one report card from each claim in the Appeal docket and suggested that the BOR and the Umpire could assume that all the other cards were the same. At the re-hearing before a new BOR, the Commission filed all the report cards. The FCA found that it would be unfair to remit a matter to a BOR in order for one party to file new evidence which could have been filed earlier and if evidence was deliberately or accidentally withheld, it is not a reason to order a "de novo".
Decision 53434
Full Text of Decision 53434
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0454.02
Decision A-0586.98
Full Text of Decision A-0586.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The second Board of Referees was not bound by the decision of the earlier BOR. It had to consider the evidence before it. The file before the second BOR contained evidence on the basis of which the BOR could decide as it did, without committing an error of principle. Decided by the FCA that the Umpire did not err by not intervening in the BOR's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision 41785
Full Text of Decision 41785
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0586.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision 37863
Full Text of Decision 37863
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
A hearing before an Umpire is not a hearing de novo but an appeal and not an occasion for an Umpire to substitute his views for those of the Board on issues of facts. It doesn't matter that the Umpire agrees or not, as long as the BOR had some evidence before it which would justify its decision if it believed same.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
Decision 35066
Full Text of Decision 35066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The "appeal" to an umpire is similar to an application for judicial review. It is not a trial de novo; rather, the "appeal" allows the umpire to make the decision which ought to have been made by the referees. The FCA has recently confirmed these powersin Morin (A-453-95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
| antedate |
applicability |
length of delay |
|
Decision A-0600.93
Full Text of Decision A-0600.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
In ROBERTS and TAYLOR, this Court held that an appeal to an Umpire is not an appeal in the usual sense or a trial de novo, but a proceeding in the nature of judicial review. The test is whether there was any evidence upon which the Board could have found as they did without error in principle.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 22912
Full Text of Decision 22912
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0600.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
accommodation |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 22053
Full Text of Decision 22053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Umpire appeals are not hearings de novo. While I might well have been persuaded to have come to the contrary conclusion on the facts, and probably would have, that is no justification for overturning the Board's factual determination where there is someevidence reasonably capable of supporting it.
Decision 21029
Full Text of Decision 21029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Principle well established: an Umpire appeal is not a hearing de novo with the result that an Umpire should be extremely loath to overturn a Board's decision based on its findings of fact, even though the Umpire might have been persuaded to come to the opposite conclusion.
Decision 20371
Full Text of Decision 20371
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
An Umpire appeal is not a hearing de novo and an Umpire should be extremely loath to reverse a decision based on a finding of fact, where there is evidence to reasonably support it. While I might have been disposed to have decided differently, that is not a valid ground.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0681.90
Full Text of Decision A-0681.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 14246A
Full Text of Decision 14246A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 18020
Full Text of Decision 18020
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
I wish to underline that a hearing before the Umpire is not a hearing de novo. The Umpire's authority is pursuant to s.80. The Board of Referees are the finders of fact and best able to judge credibility.
Decision 16179
Full Text of Decision 16179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The Crown Attorney wanted to have witnesses heard to comfirm the credibility of the insured. This is not a de novo trial. The absurd or arbitrary conclusion must be drawn from the documents in the file. The judge does not have to substitute his opinion to that of the Board in matters of credibility.
Decision 12992
Full Text of Decision 12992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
As has frequently been said the hearing before the Umpire is not a trial de novo and the Umpire's conclusion must be based on the Board's findings on the evidence presented before it. Not desirable to return case to Board for further evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 12516
Full Text of Decision 12516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
It is settled beyond doubt or question that an appeal to an Umpire is not a trial de novo calling for a complete retrial of the case. [p. 9]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Decision 12162
Full Text of Decision 12162
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
I am in complete agreement with this interpretation of the law: as an Umpire one should not, except in unusual circumstances, retry the matter where the question is essentially one of fact.
Decision 12149
Full Text of Decision 12149
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Since this is not a new trial, no question of hearing claimant again to allow him to adjust his story.
Decision 11988
Full Text of Decision 11988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Written submissions by employer considered to be argument only based on the information before the Board. An appeal to the Umpire is not a trial de novo nor does it permit the introduction of additional evidence.
Decision 11557
Full Text of Decision 11557
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
It should be clearly understood that this is not a new trial, but rather a determination concerning the conduct of the hearing before the Board. An Umpire does not stand in the shoes of the Board. Credibility and facts are an exclusive right of Board.
Decision 11265
Full Text of Decision 11265
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
A hearing before the Umpire is not a trial de novo and the decision of the Board on a question of fact can only be reversed if it was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
Decision 10995
Full Text of Decision 10995
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
S.80 does not provide for a trial de novo where the Umpire would re-hear all the evidence and make his own decision. The appeal cannot succeed unless the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse and capricious manneror without regard for the material.
Decision 10889
Full Text of Decision 10889
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
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 |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Decision A-0595.84
Full Text of Decision A-0595.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
Although the word "appeal" is used in s.80, the substance of the Umpire's jurisdiction is identical with that of this Court. The proceeding before the Umpire is not an appeal in the usual sense of that word but a circumscribed review. [p._4]
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 |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision A-0131.90
Full Text of Decision A-0131.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Summary:
The notice of appeal may, as any other document of the submission, be modified. Provided the principles of natural justice are complied with and the respondent is not taken by surprise, the Umpire should allow a claimant to raise questions not identified on the original notice.
The Umpire dismissed the Commission's appeal solely on the ground that the notice of appeal was based on para. 80(b) whereas, in his view, the appeal was based on para. 80(c). He erred by taking for granted that an appellant can never raise other grounds than those firstly raised.
Decision 17800
Full Text of Decision 17800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0131.90
Decision 12516
Full Text of Decision 12516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Summary:
S.80 and 81 must be read together in context, not separately and in isolation. They should be given a broad and remedial construction. Once a ground for appeal is found valid, an Umpire can decide any question on law or fact necessary for the disposition of the appeal. [p. 12]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision A-0381.85
Full Text of Decision A-0381.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Summary:
Once the Umpire has correctly found that the Board has made an error of law, the question whether there was evidence which could reasonably allow the Board to conclude as it did no longer arises.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0737.97
Full Text of Decision A-0737.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Although an Umpire has the authority, when cancelling a BOR's decision, to give the decision that should have been given, he should do so only when the evidence in the file is sufficiently clear and not open to interpretation or subjective assessment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0823.97
Full Text of Decision A-0823.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The Umpire decided that it is impossible to determine whether the Commission exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that there is sufficient evidence in the file indicating extenuating circumstances to send the case back to the BOR. The FCA ruled that the very brief but sufficient analysis by the BOR shows that this body considered both the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission and the opportunity to reduce the penalty. There is no need to sent the case back to the BOR and the Umpire’s decision is reversed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 40214
Full Text of Decision 40214
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Claimants admitted that the alleged facts caused their dismissal. BOR went against the jurisprudence in overlooking these facts and their interpretation of the jurisprudence was erroneous in law and in fact and was made in a perverse or capricious manner and without regard for the material before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 33033
Full Text of Decision 33033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The arbitration board does not seem to have paid due attention to the serious allegations brought forward by the employer. Its decision seems to be based solely on the beneficiary's testimony. The arbitration board could have set aside the documentary evidence, but was obliged to explain why it had to do so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Decision 25917
Full Text of Decision 25917
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
A Board is not required to refer to all of the evidence that is before it. It is sufficient that its decision reflect the fact that it has taken all of the evidence before it that is relevant to the issue in question into account.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 25193
Full Text of Decision 25193
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision was made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard to the material before it. It failed to indicate why it did not accept what the doctor stated as to the period of claimant's incapacity, and nor did it speak of the claimant's admission that he is incapable of working.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
incapacity |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 24943
Full Text of Decision 24943
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
CUB 19867 quoted. There is nothing in the Board's decision to indicate that it gave any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of the employer. I must therefore set aside the Board's decision on the ground that it appears to have made a finding of fact without regard to the material before it.
Decision 22877
Full Text of Decision 22877
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0582.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision A-0582.93
Full Text of Decision A-0582.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
This last point (the Umpire's decision based on an erroneous finding of fact without regard to the evidence before him) is manifestly well founded. The Umpire's decision deducted from the settlement relocating expenses, an item to which the statement of claim did not contain any reference.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 21875
Full Text of Decision 21875
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1467.92
Decision A-1467.92
Full Text of Decision A-1467.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The CEIC itself admitted that the statements in question had been refuted by the testimony given before the Board. The Board may have been wrong in deciding as it did, but it certainly did not ignore the written statements when it decided to give more credence to the testimony it had heard.
Decision 23208
Full Text of Decision 23208
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the Board of Referees based its decision solely on the testimony given by the claimant when he appeared before it. In my opinion, the Board's failure to consider the documentary evidence submitted to it prior to the hearing is an error in law.
Decision 22777
Full Text of Decision 22777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Evidence in the form of an affidavit and a signed statement from 2 people were before the Board. The Board made no reference to a finding with respect to the affidavit evidence. I therefore conclude that it based its decision on a finding of fact made without regard to the material before it.
Decision 21528
Full Text of Decision 21528
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The Board did not have regard to claimant's signed statement that farming was his main livelihood, that he worked at it all day. The Board adopted his statements, in the telephone hearing, without regard to the fact that he had not worked off the farm during the farming season.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 21401
Full Text of Decision 21401
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made without regard to the material before it. Notwithstanding her consistent and uncontradicted statements to the contrary, the Board states that she never discussed the problem with her supervisor.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 19867
Full Text of Decision 19867
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
While it is not necessary that a Board in its record of decision consider specifically every bit of evidence put before it, it is an irregularity where the evidence is directly conflicting not to indicate that it has at least given consideration to it if only to reject it.
Decision 18671
Full Text of Decision 18671
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
A number of documents in the file such as the lease and a document form the protonotary testify to the insured person's involvement in the company. By giving more value to evidence contradicting that, the Board did not take account of the points brought to its knowledge.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision A-0078.89
Full Text of Decision A-0078.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The documentary evidence shows that claimant operated a business on a continuing basis. The Board does not mention it and simply accepts claimant's statement that he never intended to operate a business. The Umpire was correct in intervening.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Decision 16177
Full Text of Decision 16177
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0078.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Decision 17150
Full Text of Decision 17150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
While the Board notes "new evidence", it does not say whether it accepts or rejects this material. No finding as to whether the statement signed is credible and what weight should be given it. This gives rise to the possibility that it did not take thatstatement into account.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Decision 12359A
Full Text of Decision 12359A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Claimant submitted evidence that she applied for work in the Grand Falls area. The Board found that claimant's availability was restricted to Botwood and Bishops Falls only. That finding was made without regard to the material before the Board.
Decision A-0568.79
Full Text of Decision A-0568.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Nothing in the evidence to show that there were special funding arrangements permitting employees not to contribute to a strike initiated against their interests. Error of law since the Umpire's decision was based on this finding, without regard to the evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
