Summary Search Results...


Decision A0385.10 Full Text of Decision A0385.10

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The claimant was employed until October 16, 2008, at which time she voluntarily left her employment stating that she left to prepare for a trip. Based on her testimony at the hearing, the BOR found that the claimant left her employment due to a shortage of work and that she was available during the period at issue. The Umpire confirmed the BOR's decision. The FCA held that the BOR erred in law by relying solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing, thereby ignoring without explanation the initial and spontaneous statements made by the claimant demonstrating that she left her employment voluntarily without just cause. The BOR further erred in law by concluding that the claimant had established her availability on the basis of her job search efforts following the period at issue.


Decision 71255 Full Text of Decision 71255

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The claimant indicated that she was attending a full-time education program in Childhood Education. The courses were given from 8:20 am to 4:30 pm, from Monday to Friday. She also expected to have to devote another 10 to 15 hours per week on her course. Her intention was to devote her time to her course rather than look for work. She added that she was a student trying to get through her course and not having to worry about working part time to pay her bills and she could not live solely on her student loan. She stated that she was not available to work because of her studies. Subsequently, she indicated that she was available to work on a part-time basis but on weekends only, as school had to come first. It is well established in the jurisprudence that a person whose availability for employment is limited to part-time work outside his or her course schedule has not established availability for employment pursuant to subsection 18(a) of the Act. The Commission’s appeal is allowed.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work courses Availability Criteria

Decision A-0156.99 Full Text of Decision A-0156.99

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Claimant criticized BOR for not accepting his version of the facts. Umpire refused to intervene, ruling that banking of hours had taken place and that the scheme is designed to defraud EI. Claimant alleged before FCA that BOR and Umpire had refused to consider certain evidence. Court summarily denied the claimant's request for a judicial review, ruling that the evidence presented by the claimant was not sufficient to challenge the findings of the Umpire or BOR.


Decision 43617 Full Text of Decision 43617

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

See summary indexed under FCA A-0156.99


Decision 42165 Full Text of Decision 42165

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Although the claimant showed that he had a history of working and going to school, he was not granted any reasonable period of time, and he was refused benefits. According to the Umpire, BOR erred in law in not taking this situation into account by granting a reasonable period of three months, given his undisputed history of working and going to school and the claimant's availability to work part-time while attending school 15 to 18 hours a week.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work courses after reasonable period of time
board of referees errors in law availability concept
availability for work courses pattern study-work simultaneously

Decision A-0086.98 Full Text of Decision A-0086.98

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Penalty imposed for having made 25 false statements. Umpire found that the BOR had misinterpreted the facts in reversing the Commission's decision. The claimant's allegation of "several years of drug abuse" to justify his situation was neither reasonable nor credible. He had been sufficiently lucid to report to work for 49 consecutive weeks as well as to sign and submit his statements under the guise of being unemployed, for the obvious purpose of collecting benefits to which he was not entitled. FCA upheld the Umpire's decision.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties misrepresentation
penalties proof
penalties knowingly

Decision 41469 Full Text of Decision 41469

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of provision
misconduct breach of rules

Decision A-0141.97 Full Text of Decision A-0141.97

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Quit her job after refusing two alternatives as neither allowed her to work full time during the day. Umpire found that just cause was implicitly considered by the BOR when it found that the employer had in good faith made reasonable offers of job to the claimant. FCA disagreed with the Umpire's conclusion finding that the BOR did not fully consider whether the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment. By focusing almost exclusively on the issue of whether the employer's re-organization of its business was done in good faith, the BOR failed to have proper regard for the statutory test for just cause as it found in subsection 28(4) of the Act.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment legislation questions to examine

Decision 39928 Full Text of Decision 39928

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Claimant is paid for 10 weeks and during the rest of the year she provides her services on a voluntary basis while receiving benefits. According to the Umpire, the BOR erred in describing this as volunteer work. BOR did not consider that she derived a benefit, namely the hope of being paid for 10 weeks each year. Therefore, her motives for doing the work are not entirely disinterested.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment benevolent work

Decision 38774 Full Text of Decision 38774

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Dismissed for failing on 3 occasions to report for work. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law because it didn't examine the evidence to determine the reason in each instance for the claimant's failure to report for work and to further determine whether having regard thereto, the mental element of willfulness was present on each occasion. BOR simply applied the definition of misconduct from Tucker to conclude that absence from work on 3 occasions constituted misconduct without further analysis. Absence from work may be cause for dismissal but cause for dismissal does not equate with misconduct.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct absences from work

Decision A-0904.96 Full Text of Decision A-0904.96

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Wife paid for work performed by the claimant. No earnings declared. Claimant admitted before the BOR that he knew the way he was completing his cards was incorrect and illegal. Nevertheless, the BOR found that the claimant had not knowingly made 14 false statements. Umpire overturned the BOR's decision, stating that it was made with total disregard for the facts. FCA ruled that the Umpire was justified in substituting her assessment of the evidence for that of the BOR, since the Board had dismissed a statement by the claimant without explanation.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties clear and simple language
earnings income between spouses

Decision A-0611.96 Full Text of Decision A-0611.96

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The employer ordered the closure of the jobsite where the claimant worked because of a dispute with the union. This action by the employer was part of a labour dispute which, for several months, had pitted employers and employees in the construction industry against one another on the subject of the terms and conditions of their future agreement. FCA maintained that the existence of a causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work is a question of law. Therefore, it applied the decision in J.D. Laval et al (A-0825.95), which found in similar circumstances that there was a clear causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work. Court held that both the BOR and the Umpire erred in law when they found that such a connection did not exist.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute stoppage of work attributable to dispute

Decision 35498 Full Text of Decision 35498

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The Board made an error in law by asking whether the misconduct of which the claimant was accused justified dismissal when it concluded that the final disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the act of which he was accused. Should rather have determined whether dismissal was due to misconduct.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct absences from work
misconduct merit of dismissal
misconduct breach of rules

Decision A-0216.93 Full Text of Decision A-0216.93

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Since the appreciation of "good cause" necessarily requires an examination of all the circumstances it would have been an error for the Board not to consider claimant's illness. There is no sacramental formula which requires the trier to use a specific form of words in coming to a conclusion.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate health reasons
antedate very exceptional circumstances
antedate waiting for job searching for work

Decision 21236 Full Text of Decision 21236

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Refer to: A-1036.92

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute conditions required for disentitlement
labour dispute rationale
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
labour dispute loss of employment prior to stoppage

Decision A-1036.92 Full Text of Decision A-1036.92

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The second issue was said to be a factual one: the Umpire found "as a fact" that the loss of employment resulted from the stoppage of work. This is not a factual matter at all; it is a conclusion of law based on certain facts found by the Umpire. There is really no dispute with regard to the facts.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute rationale
labour dispute conditions required for disentitlement
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
labour dispute loss of employment prior to stoppage
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system

Decision 20418 Full Text of Decision 20418

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Claimant accompanied her husband to Toronto for a lung transplant operation. The employer approved her request for leave of absence. It was a prerequisite of the program that she must care for husband at all times. The Board erred in law in equating this situation to quarantine.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
sickness benefits quarantine definition
availability for work absences from home sickness or death

Decision A-0258.90 Full Text of Decision A-0258.90

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Claimant's 1987 vacation pay not paid to her on a timely basis because of employer's financial difficulties. Paid to her in 11-88. The Board and the Umpire erred in law in characterizing as a loan the unpaid amount. It does not possess the attributes of a loan. No such evidence.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings vacation pay specific period
earnings vacation pay in any other case

Decision 16645 Full Text of Decision 16645

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

On a training period in a convenience store where he earned $25 for working 40 hours a week. The program came under the provincial government. The Board erred in law by finding that it was a job search.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment government programs

Decision S-0512.88

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

As per the FC, the Board erred in law in stating that the tentative agreement brought to an end the labour dispute. Such agreement, by definition, has no effect until it is made definitive. It was never ratified and never took effect. Leave to appeal to SC dismissed.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires grounds of appeal capricious finding meaning

Decision A-0220.87 Full Text of Decision A-0220.87

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

A determination of the date at which earnings were interrupted depends, under ss. 37(3), on the length of the leave to which he was entitled. A determination as to his rights under the labour agreement was not a question of fact but one of law. The Board erred in law.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings compensatory leave
interruption of earnings charter

Decision 15384 Full Text of Decision 15384

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Foreman of subcontractor threatened claimant. Upon being informed, employer offered claimant a job to another site with less hours. Error in law not to consider constructive dismissal as indicated by banishment with less hours although he appeared not to have been in the wrong.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment applicability tantamount to dismissal

Decision A-0732.86 Full Text of Decision A-0732.86

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The Board's decision is simply contradictory to the findings of fact. Therefore, it made either an error of law or an error of fact. It simply did not make findings of fact which supported the conclusions which it reached, according to the Umpire. Upheld by the FC.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment job search

Decision 12865 Full Text of Decision 12865

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Refer to: A-0732.86

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment job search

Decision 13443 Full Text of Decision 13443

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Refer to: A-0220.87

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings compensatory leave
interruption of earnings charter
umpires jurisdiction binding judgments

Decision A-0186.86 Full Text of Decision A-0186.86

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

3 months salary paid following permanent shutdown. Contract in force according to Board. The Umpire held a contrary view. Error in law. The parties to a contract of employment can legally agree to extend the contract for a period in which one will not be required to do any work.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings conditions required 7 days without earnings
umpires grounds of appeal capricious finding meaning

Decision 11836 Full Text of Decision 11836

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Refer to: A-0186.86

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings conditions required 7 days without earnings
umpires grounds of appeal capricious finding meaning

Decision 12380 Full Text of Decision 12380

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Board erred in law in concluding that a person who receives $30 per week for petty cash in addition to accommodation at hotel at employer's expense is working as volunteer.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment benevolent work
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
penalties earnings

Decision A-1198.84 Full Text of Decision A-1198.84

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The facts here never created any difficulties. The issue is whether those facts are consistent with the facts contemplated by the legal rule in issue, and characterization of those facts depends on the interpretation; this raises a question of law. [Marceau J.A.]


Decision 10922 Full Text of Decision 10922

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Insured argued that it is a question of credibility and therefore a question of law; tried to find errors of law committed by board. Seems plain to me that credibility is a question of fact and that it always has been thus regarded in case law.


Decision A-0832.82 Full Text of Decision A-0832.82

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Claimant received $190 for 25 and 26-12 (advance pay against future credits but not stated in the judgment). That sum constituted "pay received in respect of a holiday" that had to be allocated under reg. 58(12). In treating the sum as a mere loan, the Board erred in law.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings wages or salary designated holidays

Decision A-0117.81 Full Text of Decision A-0117.81

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

The Umpire erred in law in deciding that the 8% paid in lieu of vacation was severance pay.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings vacation pay definition

Decision A-0770.80 Full Text of Decision A-0770.80

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Claimant gave Boiestown as her address. Benefit period established with 10 insured weeks. She actually resided in Taxis River where 16 weeks were required. The Umpire erred in law. No dispute that claimant lives in Taxis River, so reg.61(2) dealing withboundary residents is not applicable.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts ordinarily resident defined boundaries

Decision A-0568.79 Full Text of Decision A-0568.79

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
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 Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires grounds of appeal without regard for material

Decision A-0354.79 Full Text of Decision A-0354.79

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

According to the Umpire, the dispute was the occasion and not the cause of the stoppage: the employer had taken advantage of bargaining to try to reduce break times. We are of the opinion that the judged erred in law: the stoppage was attributable to the dispute.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute stoppage of work attributable to dispute

Decision A-0445.76 Full Text of Decision A-0445.76

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts
Summary:

Conflict between the FTQ and employer associations concerning amendments to be made to the construction decree. Umpire erred in law in finding that the conflict was not between employer and employees, but between the government and the FTQ.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute labour dispute definition
Date modified: