Summary of Issue: With Diligence

Decision A0043.11 Full Text of Decision A0043.11

The Commission contends that it was not open to the Umpire to reconsider his earlier decision as he was not presented with new facts as contemplated by section 120 of the Act. The claimant reemphasized that his depression and alcohol use in 2005 and 2006 left him unable to complete adequately his EI claim and attached a letter from his physician confirming his depression. The FCA concluded that the Umpire applied the wrong test for new facts. The test is not whether the claimant was aware that a medical opinion had to be produced, but whether the claimant acting diligently could have produced this evidence. In this case, the claimant’s medical condition was known at the relevant time and a medical opinion confirming this condition could have been obtained, if sought. It follows that the medical note cannot be viewed as “new facts”. In the absence of new facts, the Umpire had no authority to reconsider his earlier decision.

Decision A-0593.96 Full Text of Decision A-0593.96

Umpire found that a "fact" cannot be considered "new" more than four years after it is brought to the attention of the parties concerned. In this case, the claimants were negligent in failing to clearly ask for my decision to be changed under s. 86 of the Act. Reference to Chan A-185.94. Court upheld the Umpire’s decision.

Decision 13015 Full Text of Decision 13015

Surely, there must be some responsibility on the Commission to act promptly and with reasonable diligence so as to minimize overpayments. Claimant acted bona fide. Technically, the law is against him but the equities are all on his side.

Decision 12903 Full Text of Decision 12903

Investigation into availability and decision not made within reasonable time; s. 86 considered. Nothing in that section provides for obligation to act diligently or within specific time. If new facts exist, s. 86 empowers Commission to amend initial decision.