Decision A-0629.04
Full Text of Decision A-0629.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Board of Referees had failed to consider relevant evidence that supported the allegations of misconduct, and that the umpire was justified to intervene and give the decision that the Board of Referees should have given.
Decision 61907
Full Text of Decision 61907
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0629.04
Decision A-0043.02
Full Text of Decision A-0043.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Umpire did not err by dealing with the question the Board of Referees had failed to ask, that is, whether the claimant had breached an obligation imposed by his employment contract, and whether, by extension, he had lost his job as a result of his own misconduct.
Decision 40214
Full Text of Decision 40214
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
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: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision A-1598.92
Full Text of Decision A-1598.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Board substituted the misconduct disqualification for one for voluntarily leaving. The Board did not stray from the subject matter it was called upon to consider. The principle that its jurisdiction is limited to dealing with the decision made by the CEIC, as stated in HAMILTON, was respected.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 22055
Full Text of Decision 22055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1598.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 19923
Full Text of Decision 19923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The decision on appeal was that the claimant had not proven that he was capable and available because he had left his job for reasons of health and had not provided adequate proof of his capacity. The Board made no findings with respect to his capacity but only his job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Decision 19821
Full Text of Decision 19821
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The only issue before the Board was whether the CEIC decision as communicated to claimant, which related exclusively to his attendance at a course of study, was a proper determination. To consider other restrictions unrelated thereto would conflict withprinciples of fairness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
credits obtained |
|
Decision 18083
Full Text of Decision 18083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimant working full-time in wife's business without pay. Reg. 44 applied. The Commission did not allege self-employment or co-adventure, matters dealt with under reg. 43, as the basis of its decision. Failing this and any proof of remuneration, the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
business of a spouse |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 17308
Full Text of Decision 17308
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Disentitled due to restrictions while attending courses. It is argued the Board ought not to have relied upon notes from potential employers as this was not an active job search. This might have been a basis on which to deny UI, but it was not the ground the Commission adopted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work not at same time |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
Decision 17249
Full Text of Decision 17249
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Declared not to be unemployed since she had control over her working hours. The Board upheld the decision stating that she did have set hours. It is consistently established that a Board cannot accept a ground other than that invoked by CEIC. Appeal granted.
Decision 17141
Full Text of Decision 17141
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The issue was lack of a job search, child care and intent to seek work. The Board clearly accepted claimant's evidence on this matter but maintained unavailability based on restricted type of work. It was an error to make any findings in this regard.
Decision 15923
Full Text of Decision 15923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in part when it found that claimant was not available. The issue related to claimant's employment under ss.10(1) and reg. 43(1)(b), not whether he was available. The Board also erred in law by failing to consider whether the employment was minor in extent.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
preparatory activities in commencing business |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision 15693
Full Text of Decision 15693
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Did not answer the questionnaire of 4-5; stated he was not available from 25-5 to 18-6. If he began to look for a job on 4-5, he became available on 4-5 since the issue here is one of availability, not of section 40, which was not mentioned in the notice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
request for information |
|
Decision 15490
Full Text of Decision 15490
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimant disentitled because she did not take steps to be advised of job offers while absent. Upheld by Board on the ground she could not shorten her visit. That was not the issue which claimant had been notified. Decision set aside.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
personal reasons |
|
Decision A-0175.87
Full Text of Decision A-0175.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Antedate denied by Board because claimant was not available for work. It is trite law that what a Board or Umpire must deal with is the decision that the Commission made, not that which it might or should have made. Availability had nothing at all to do with antedating.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
availability |
|
Decision 14797
Full Text of Decision 14797
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Reason for disentitlement was that claimant was unduly restricting the acceptable types of work. The Board focused entirely upon restrictions as to hours and wage rate. The Board should have considered instead the reason for which the Commission disentited the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Decision 14686
Full Text of Decision 14686
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Decision set aside under 80(a) because the Board acted beyond its jurisdiction. It decided a question which was not before it. It decided that claimant had quit his job without just cause whereas the decision was that he had refused a job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 14440
Full Text of Decision 14440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
By finding that claimant was primarily interested in pursuing her own business and therefore restricting her availability, the Board did not limit itself to the issue, namely whether claimant's wage expectation limited her availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 12874
Full Text of Decision 12874
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Disentitled for being on vacation. Found not to be so by Board but case dismissed due to no job search list. A party has the right to know the case against him and be afforded adequate opportunity to answer. Case to be reheard so that such opportunity be given.
Decision 12780
Full Text of Decision 12780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Disentitled because attending to child who was ill. Dismissed by Board because no job search list. Decision not to be based on a different issue. Claimant goes to hearing expecting to answer identified issue. Breach of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice a nullity |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 11424
Full Text of Decision 11424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The majority answered a different question from that which was correctly posed and thereby miscontrued the law and exceeded their jurisdiction. Question: Was claimant unemployed? Decision: Claimant cannot claim benefits as unemployed as he was not available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Decision 11097
Full Text of Decision 11097
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The ground invoked by the Commission was that claimant was working full working weeks. That is the decision she appealed. The Board focussed its attention on whether she had been making adequate job searches. That was not the issue she was prepared to meet.
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 11076
Full Text of Decision 11076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Decision appealed was based on a finding that claimant was engaged in business whereas the Board focussed on availability and job search. Referred back to Board.
