| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | federal court | jurisdiction |
Summary: The powers of this Court under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act are not as comprehensive as those of an Umpire under s. 81 of the UI Act. We cannot decide necessary questions of fact. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | umpires | jurisdiction | not exercised |
Summary: The Umpire noted that the Board had totally ignored the issue raised by ss. 43(2). He set aside the Board's decision, making no direction or other finding. This failure amounted to a refusal of jurisdiction. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | board of referees | errors in law | decision incomplete | principal means of livelihood |
Summary: The Board totally ignored ss. 43(2) as to whether claimant's employment was minor in extent. Since this was an error in law, the Umpire allowed the appeal. Judgment quashed by FC because Umpire failed to make a finding under ss. 43(2). |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | board of referees | errors in law | decision incomplete | various |
Summary: The Umpire noted that the Board had totally ignored the issue raised by ss. 43(2). He set aside the Board's decision, making no direction or other finding. This failure amounted to a refusal of jurisdiction. |
