Decision A-0233.79

Summary:

Reg. 166(2) which states that average rates of unemployment as determined by Statistics Canada are to be used was validly made under s.58(u) as it existed prior to 11-9-77.

---

Summary:

Reg. 166(2) was held to have been validly made in the exercise of the authority conferred by s.58(u) in LANGFORD. Since the ground of attack that is urged here did not have to be considered in LANGFORD, the decision in that case is not a bar to its consideration here. [p.13]

---

Summary:

Computer fed with erroneous data on rates of unemployment. It was argued that s.43 contemplates reconsideration of a decision and that there was here no decision but only an error in processing data. S.43 is authority to reconsider "any claim", i.e. a right to benefit. [p.17] The words "not entitled" in s.43 are neither another part of speech nor another grammatical form of the word "disentitled" in ss.5(1) within the meaning of s.26(8) of the Interpretation Act. [p.19] The words "not entitled" in s.43 are not limited to the "disentitling" clauses enumerated in 5(1). In their plain meaning, they clearly cover the case of a person who was paid extended benefits beyond termination of the benefit period. [p.18]

---

Summary:

Great stress was laid in argument on hardship caused to individuals by the action of the Commission pursuant to s.43. Relief from hardship is to be dealt with otherwise, as indicated in reg._60 to which reference has already been made. [p.19]

---