Decision 65055
Full Text of Decision 65055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees changed the noted violation to a minor violation as a result of reducing the penalty. The evidence on record shows that this was a subsequent violation and the Umpire found that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and rendered a decision which is wrong in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision A-0353.01
Full Text of Decision A-0353.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
A penalty imposed by the Commission that is reduced to zero by the Board of Referees amounts to no penalty at all and, in reality, is a usurpation of power that resides exclusively in the Commission under the legislation. Where, however, mitigating circumstances are shown to the BOR, the Board may reduce the quantum of the penalty to an amount that it considers commensurate with those circumstances. Reference made to the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0715.95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0417.01
Full Text of Decision A-0417.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 52722
Full Text of Decision 52722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The FCA has stated in a number of decisions [Johanne Lépine Desmarchais (A-0907.88), Balbir Kaur (A-0487.93)] that the Minister of National Revenue has the sole jurisdiction to decide the question of insurability of employment. If the claimant wishes to contest the Revenue Canada decision, this must be done before the Tax Court of Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51746
Full Text of Decision 51746
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant reduced her working hours in order to ensure carrying her pregnancy to full term. She was insured under a wage loss insurance plan and received weekly indemnity payments under that plan which supplemented her wages. Claimant contends that the payments ought to be considered insured earnings and be taken into account in calculating her weekly rate. Request denied by Commission. BOR allowed claimant's appeal but Umpire held that BOR had no jurisdiction as that jurisdiction by statute is reserved for resolution to Revenue Canada.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
wage-loss insurance payments |
|
Decision 51357
Full Text of Decision 51357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0353.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 51479
Full Text of Decision 51479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0417.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 46460
Full Text of Decision 46460
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
BOR held that in the case of a first offence, the penalty was sufficient and the Commission should have exercised its discretion by simply issuing a warning. Umpire held that the BOR erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Act does not allow a notice of very serious violation given by the Commission to be varied and replaced by a warning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision 45019
Full Text of Decision 45019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant misinformed and BOR allowed $896 for emotional trauma. Misconception of the Regs and of its jurisdiction by the BOR. The Act does not confer upon the Commission, a BOR, an Umpire or even the Appellate Division of the FCA, jurisdiction to award damages or the equivalent thereof.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
damages in tort |
|
Decision 41109
Full Text of Decision 41109
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant submited that BOR erred in law in basing its decision on information which could not be used since it was obtained by the Commission without his consent. Umpire ruled that the methods used by the Commission to obtain the information complied with the Act and could be used by the Commission and BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
charter |
|
|
Decision 40275
Full Text of Decision 40275
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
BOR committed an error by applying in their decision EI Act 29 (c)(iv) "any other reasonable circumstances that are prescribed". This means prescribed by regulations or determined in accordance with the rules prescribed by the regulations. It does not confer upon BOR the authority to adopt or prescribed what it considers to be other reasonable circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 38215
Full Text of Decision 38215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The BOR overstepped its authority and made a basic error in law by claiming to be competent to calculate the weeks of employment, a function over which the Department of National Revenue alone has discretionary power. Under subsection 61(3) of the Act, that department is the only authority competent to render decisions in that regard.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0709.95
Full Text of Decision A-0709.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
In exercising its discretionary power, the Commission judicially refused to extent the appeal period. However, the Board of Referees allowed the claimant to appeal in spite of the fact that she did this after the deadline. FCA found that the BOR could not, in this case, substitute its discretion for that of the Commission, unless it seemed that the Commission had not exercised its discretion judicially by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant ones.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 36064
Full Text of Decision 36064
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
It was not the Board of Referees' responsibility to take the place of the employer and decide whether the work requirements were justified. Provided these requirements are reasonable, it is the employer's responsibility to determine the importance to be given them. Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 25402
Full Text of Decision 25402
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board was correct in law in not deciding this secondary issue. However, if the Board considered the decision of the Insurance Officer irrelevant to the real matter in question, it should have referred the case back to the Commission. In not doing so, it failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
The Board may only deal with a "decision" of the Commission as it is. A party may not raise an issue at the hearing which was not part of the decision upon which the appeal was based. The Board cannot go beyond the decision and address issues not properly before it. To do so is an error of law.
Decision 20869
Full Text of Decision 20869
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay and severance pay received upon termination. Case allowed by Board because claimant had received erroneous information from the CEIC. It is clear that the Board erred in law. A claim cannot be established until a claimant experiences an interruption of earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
Decision 18908
Full Text of Decision 18908
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Has only 19 of the 20 weeks required. Percentage paid each week as 3 public holidays. In the view of the Board, this represented a 20th week. An error in law; insurability is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. In any event, this could not be decided on the basis of Reg. 58(12).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
statutory holidays |
|
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
A Board, like an Umpire, has no equitable jurisdiction under the Act. See GRANGER. To the extent that the Board's decision reflects equitable reasons, that decision would clearly be made in excess of its jurisdiction and would therefore be an error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 17888
Full Text of Decision 17888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board ruled that claimant should be indefinitely disentitled. The Commission quite properly asked that this portion of the decision be rescinded, on the ground that by aswering a question that had not been put to it, the Board erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Decision 17504
Full Text of Decision 17504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant started to work in real estate in 5-86. Notice sent to her in 6-87 saying disentitled from 5-87. The Board upheld the disentitlement from 5-86. Claimant argues that 5-86 was not an issue. The CEIC alleges typographical error and that correct date is 5-86. Held that the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision 15672
Full Text of Decision 15672
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0907.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0907.88
Full Text of Decision A-0907.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire could not, without having committed an error of law, conclude that claimant had held insurable employment for the week immediately following her dismissal by reason only of her receipt of a vacation pay allocated to that week under s. 58.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
vacation pay |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 16902
Full Text of Decision 16902
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
1 day of work followed by 19 full insured weeks followed by 1.5 days of work. 20 weeks required. Case allowed by Board as claimant actually put the time in on the first day even though she was short 2 hours in money. Error of law. Further, overtime in other weeks is of no help.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
Decision 15492
Full Text of Decision 15492
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
I do not believe it was open to the Board to increase the period of disentitlement by making it commence at an earlier date and if that was what the Board intended to do, it was an error of law.
Decision 15459
Full Text of Decision 15459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board obviously erred in law. In accordance with 75(3) and 105, determination of insurability is made by the Minister of Revenue. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review such a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 15036
Full Text of Decision 15036
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The Board was wrong in holding that reg. 52 was contrary to the Charter. It was wrong to ignore reg. 52 and paras. 58(t) and (u) of the Act on that basis. The Board erred in law in being dissatisfied with the methodology used by Statistics Canada and selection of that agency.
If it is not the function of the Supreme Court to question the wisdom of enactments nor to adjudicate upon the merits of basic policies, it is certainly no part of the function of Boards to do so. They are obliged to avoid erring in law but must not question Parliament's wisdom.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 11072
Full Text of Decision 11072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Non-insurability ruling reversed by National Revenue and then appealed before Tax Court. The Board held that a benefit period must be established in the meantime. Error of law in that it did not have regard to reg. 50.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
decision under appeal |
|
Decision A-0852.81
Full Text of Decision A-0852.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Claimant had 6 of the 10 weeks required to qualify. The Umpire allowed the case because refusal here would defeat the intent of the legislation although the letter of the law was not met. Error in law. The Interpretation Act does not allow departure from a clear provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
