FRANÇAIS

The following decision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the three appeal files on the same claimant, relating to three different years. 

The officer's decision is twofold, stating that the claimant, who was employed in agriculture within the meaning of s. 42(2) of the Regulations, was not unemployed, and that he consciously made false or misleading declarations on this subject. 

The officer's first decision was unanimously upheld by the Board. Given that the claimant himself has admitted that he was working seven days a week at more than fifty hours per week in agricultural tasks on his father's farm, it is difficult to see in what respect the Board of Referees could have based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner without regard for the material before it, as alleged in the grounds for appeal. 

Under the provisions of s. 42(2) of the Regulations, a claimant who is employed in agriculture shall be regarded as having worked a full working week during any week in which he works not less than five days and not less than forty hours in the aggregate. 

The officer's second decision was upheld by the majority of the Board, which states in its decision that the claimant declared that he had not worked during the weeks in question, whereas the facts show that he had actually been employed throughout that period, working for his father on the latter's farm. 

For his part, the dissenting member maintains that he claimant did not "knowingly" make false declarations. During the hearing before the Board, he solemnly stated that he had received no pay for the work that he performed for his father, and he had kept the Commission informede that he was helping his father on the farm. 

What is involved here is an appreciation of facts. The claimant was present before the Board, and he had the opportunity to put forward his arguments. By a majority, the Board held that he had knowingly made false declarations. I do not see how in a matter of pure credibility the Umpire could substitute himself for the members of the Board and make a decision that differed from theirs. There is nothing in the record that indicates that the Board erred. 

Therefore, this appeal cannot be allowed. 

UMPIRE