Decision T2043.13
Full Text of Decision T2043.13
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Coming after an investigation, the Commission concluded that the claimant should not have received benefits because his self-employment was not minor during the relevant period of time. A retroactive disentitlement was imposed on the claimant. The claimant requested that his overpayment be written off Under ss. 56(2) of the EIR. The Commission denied the request on the basis that the claimant was working and did not reports his income. The FCA found that the statements of the claimant regarding his work hours support no conclusion other than the claimant made false or misleading déclarations, whether he knew them to be false or misleading or not. The FCA found that the Commission was unable to exercise its discretion to write-off the amounts claimed by the claimant as the clear intention of Parliament was to place full responsibility on the claimant for any errors or misrepresentations in the application for benefits. Application for judicial review dismissed.
Decision A0053.10
Full Text of Decision A0053.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The applicant filed a notice of appeal to the BOR arguing that he never explicitly requested a "write-off" of his debt. On the issue of write-off, the FCA determined that no such write-off was ever requested by the applicant, hence the matter should not be considered. In concurring reasons, Justice Stratas found that even though a write-off had not formally been requested by the applicant, the issue of the existence of a right to appeal write-off decisions before a BOR should be considered. Justice Stratas reasoned that the amendment of s.114(1) EIA to include «other person» was intended to allow an appeal of rulings on write-off to the BOR and the Umpire. Justice Stratas' findings contradict the current jurisprudence on the issue.
Decision 68945
Full Text of Decision 68945
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
This CUB is related to 100 other CUBs between 68945 and 69045 and CUB 67714A, some claimant appeals, some Commission appeals - CUB 68945 is the same decision for all. The cases all involve a system of banking time or accumulating hours between 1992 and 1997 by the employer, Pavages Continental, and certain employees. The employer pleaded guilty to a number of charges in Quebec Provincial Court and was fined $ 80,000. Claimants were subject to retroactive allocations of earnings and recalcutions of their benefit rates based on rulings of the Canada Revenue Agency, resulting in overpayments, along with penalties imposed for false or misleading statements. The Umpire limited the appeals to two issues: writing off of the overpayments and the quantum of the penalties imposed.
After an extensive review of the case law on write-offs, the Umpire concluded the following: " ... conscious of the limitations on my jurisdiction as an Umpire ..., I recommend that the Commission designate different agents to redo the work required by the guidelines and reassess repayment of the overpayment in each case, in order to determine whether the amounts risk imposing undue harship on the debtors.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
record of employment |
|
|
Decision T1721.06
Full Text of Decision T1721.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The claimant had a large overpayment covering three benefit periods and resulting from retroactive insurable rulings in regard to his employment with a business of which he controlled more than 40% of voting shares. The Federal Court judge upheld the Commission's discretion not to write-off the claimant's debt under section 56 of the EI Regulations. The appeals brought over time by the claimant merely suspended the time limitation of six years for recovery. The time limitation of six years applies as the claimant had made false or misleading statements, regardless of the intention behind the statements. As to "undue hardship", the claimant is seasonally employed, has patrimony that is not without assets and has the option of repayment in instalments. Writing off a debt is an exceptional mechanism that is intended for very specific cases, considering that the amounts in question belong to the common good. See also linked decision of the FCA A-213-06: "As this Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review against the refusal of a write-off application under the Employment Insurance Act, the application is dismissed".
Decision T0395.06
Full Text of Decision T0395.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The Trial Division of the Federal Court recognized that it did not have the authority to write-off and that its power is limited to giving certain instructions - and that the instructions cannot be a judge's substitute for the Commission's decision. The Court referred the matter back to the Commission so that it may proceed to redetermine the write-off request, taking into account all of the pertinent facts and dismissing all of the irrelevant information, while referring for guidance to the factual information included in the analysis of its decision. The Court also strongly urged the Commission to apply the Regulations providing for the write-off of the amounts claimed from the applicant.
Decision A-0365.04
Full Text of Decision A-0365.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The Federal Court of Appeal expresses its agreement with the Federal Court judge and submits that the Commission, in exercising its discretion, must first consider the recoverability of the debt. The Commission must take into account circumstances regarding the repayment and not those regarding the overpayment and the claim for benefits. Only when the Commission finds that there would be undue hardship should issues such as good faith, the reason for the overpayment and so on become relevant.
Decision T-0535.03
Full Text of Decision T-0535.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The claimant requested a write off of his overpayment. The Commission refused, using the notion of "privation injustifiable" [undue hardship]. The Umpire emphasized that this is considered equivalent to "préjudice abusif" [undue hardship], as concluded by Justice Tremblay Lamer in Côté. The structure of section 56 of the Regulations provides an opening for the Commission to exercise its discretionary powers to write off an overpayment only when the existence of a prior condition, in this case, undue hardship (préjudice abusive in the French version), has been demonstrated. He concluded that by exercising its discretion, the Commission does not have to consider the claimant's good faith, the causes of the overpayment, and the recommendation of the Board of Referees.
Decision T-0677.01
Full Text of Decision T-0677.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees found that the claimant was credible and the Umpire recommended that the overpayment resulting from Commission errors be deducted. Referring to the decision of the FCA, Trial Division, in Campbell, T-0576.01, the judge indicated that the Commission had not taken into account the finding of fact of the Board of Referees and the Umpire, and by acting in this manner, had failed to note a significant factor and failed to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter referred back to the Commission for reconsideration.
Decision T-0576.01
Full Text of Decision T-0576.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The BOR having found that the claimant was credible and had made no false or misleading statements, the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, cannot make a different finding of fact than the BOR. By failing to take into account the findings of fact of the BOR, the Commission fettered its discretion and it cannot be said that it exercised its discretion judicially. Judicial review allowed and matter sent back for reconsideration by the Commission.
Decision A-0417.01
Full Text of Decision A-0417.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision T-0027.99
Full Text of Decision T-0027.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
An application for judicial review cannot succeed unless it overcomes two obstacles: (1) the overpayment does not result from a false or misleading statement or representation; and (2) it must be shown that the Commission wrongly exercised its discretion when it refused to write off the overpayment. There are three standards of review for determining whether such action is justified: a decision that is simply unfounded, an unreasonable decision or a patently unreasonable decision. The standard chosen by the Court is reasonableness. **N.B.: The Commission will continue to apply the standard of patent unreasonableness to future cases. Other appeals will soon be heard by the FCA on this issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision 51479
Full Text of Decision 51479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0417.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0009.98
Full Text of Decision A-0009.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction when he referred the matter back to the BOR with instruction to reconsider the penalties with view to writing them off if they are uncollectible or would result in an undue hardship to the claimant. Court concluded that these are the very terms of s. 60(1) b) of UIR and neither the Umpire nor BOR have the authority to writte-off or waive penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0874.97
Full Text of Decision A-0874.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had rightly refused to write off the debt and the Umpire erred in not cancelling the BOR's decision in this respect. The debtor should have proceeded by requesting a judicial review before the Trial Division of the FCA and not by appealing to the Umpire. Obviously the Commission must record its decision and convey it to the person concerned.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 41492
Full Text of Decision 41492
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked for his wife’s business and generated income from his work. That income was used to pay for house-related expenses. Umpire found that in the circumstances, he was deriving benefit from his work in the form of payment of the couple’s expenses through his wife’s business income resulting from the work he provided himself. BOR had therefore erred in law in deciding to cancel the claimant’s overpayment because while the claimant did not receive payment directly, the money that his wife’s business made from his work was used to pay for the couple’s house-related expenses.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Decision A-0846.97
Full Text of Decision A-0846.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Claimant asked the Umpire that the matter of the overpayment be sent back to the Commission with a recommendation that it be written off. Request denied by the Umpire. The FCA upheld the denial, stating that the Umpire did not err in law in this respect since it has been established that a write-off comes under the jurisdiction of the Commission. All the Umpire could have done is expressed his ardent hope; he did not err in not doing so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0858.97
Full Text of Decision A-0858.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0847.97
Full Text of Decision A-0847.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0845.97
Full Text of Decision A-0845.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0857.97
Full Text of Decision A-0857.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 39197
Full Text of Decision 39197
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
It is a recognized fact that the power of write-off is entirely at the discretion of the Commission, and that a decision made in exercising this discretionary power may only be reversed if the discretionary power has been exercised in a non-judicial way. However, Umpire found that the earlier case law on s. 60(2) cannot withstand the jurisprudential change of direction that has occurred in the Purcell (A-0694.94) and Morin (A-0453.95) cases. Since the decision in those cases, a new trend has emerged, namely to accord the BOR the power to have more control over the Commission’s discretionary decisions. Umpire therefore upheld the BOR’s decision, indicating that the BOR had the jurisdiction required to intervene in the Commission’s exercise of discretionary power under s. 60(2).**NOTE: The Commission is calling for a judicial review before the FCA, because the decision was in accordance with the Act and Regulations, and because the Commission’s position is supported by recent case law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 39166
Full Text of Decision 39166
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Under s. 60 of the Regulations, the Commission may write off a penalty or overpayment if the Commission considers that, having regard to all the circumstances, the amount is uncollectable or the repayment of the amount would result in undue hardship to the debtor. This write-off falls exclusively within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and the Umpire does not have the power to impose it.
Decision A-0931.96
Full Text of Decision A-0931.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Umpire declared the creation of the overpayment wrongful because it did not meet the requirements of subsection 43(1) of the Act and wrote off the amount. On the same grounds as those outlined in Girard (A-6-97), the FCA allowed the Commission's application for judicial review, reversed the Umpire's decision and ordered that the BOR decision upholding the Commission's determination be maintained.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision A-0676.96
Full Text of Decision A-0676.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire erred in law since he did not have the authority to change the Commission’s decision whereby it refused to follow up a recommendation to write off an overpayment. The Commission exercised its authority under Reg. 60 correctly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 23378
Full Text of Decision 23378
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Only the Commission has the authority to forgive overpayments. The Boards do not have this authority, nor do the Umpires. The Commission is thereby made both judge and jury in a case in which it itself is a party. In any event, it is the public policy of the government to maintain such a provision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
permanent contract for less than 12 months |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
hardship defined |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
recourse |
Decision 19346
Full Text of Decision 19346
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Counsel for the claimant submitted that FINDENIGG is authority for the proposition that a Board has the ability to exercise the discretion granted to the Commission to write off an overpayment. I reject this argument. [p._14]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 18249
Full Text of Decision 18249
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The legislation gives no power to the Umpire to write-off an overpayment. This is strictly left to the discretion of the Commission under reg. 60. Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend to the Commission that they exercise their discretion to write-off the overpayment.
Decision 18114
Full Text of Decision 18114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
I note that pursuant to reg. 60(2) as recently enacted, any overpayment of benefits received more than 12 months before notification may be written off. Since the overpayment was communicated to claimant on 23-11-87, waiver of the portion before 23-11-86 should be undertaken.
Rate incorrectly calculated by the CEIC resulting in a substantial overpayment. It is well established that an Umpire, like the Board, has no jurisdiction to waive an overpayment. That is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the CEIC to be exercisedin their discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Decision 18081
Full Text of Decision 18081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
While I note that reg. 60 was very recently amended to allow the Commission to waive overpayment in some circumstances not previously provided for by the former regulation, the discretion to do so still remains with the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Decision 16984
Full Text of Decision 16984
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Rate of benefit recalculated due to error by Commission. Unfortunately for claimant, the discretion to remit overpayments is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission and is not exercisable by either the Board or Umpire.
Decision 16775
Full Text of Decision 16775
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Regrettable as it may appear from a claimant's perspective, the power to write off an overpayment under reg. 60 is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission which may not be exercised by a Board or Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
Decision 16689
Full Text of Decision 16689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The Board used Reg. 60 to dispense the insured person of any reimbursement. As regards right of overpayment, it is clear that the Board acted beyond its jurisdiction. Previous decisions have often maintained that only the CEIC has such discretion.
Decision 16083
Full Text of Decision 16083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
I find it almost an abuse for the Commission not to have written off this overpayment. The practice to refuse to consider reg. 60 when claimant appeals is not a sensible one. Claimant is prejudiced by such practice. Time, energy and money wasted.
Decision 15229
Full Text of Decision 15229
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The Commission has taken the position that reg._60 be not considered until claimant has exhausted all avenues of appeal. It seems to me to be enormously wasteful of taxpayers' money. Write-off at an early stage would save the need for any subsequent litigation and costs.
Decision 14133A
Full Text of Decision 14133A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Some comments regarding the Commission's discretion under reg._60 and Umpires' recommendations which are rarely followed in this respect; consideration to be given to write-off prior to rather than after the Umpire's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| job creation |
remuneration to be repaid as overpayment |
|
|
Decision 14809
Full Text of Decision 14809
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
There is no doubt, due to claimant's low level income when previously employed, that repayment of amount innocently received constitutes hardship. The Umpire has no jurisdiction to write off, the matter being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission under reg._60.
Decision 14647
Full Text of Decision 14647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
However sympathetic an Umpire may feel to a claimant, any waiver of a refund claim is within the sole jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to reg. 60.
Decision 14375
Full Text of Decision 14375
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Writing off the overpayment or arranging for lenient pay-back terms is a matter completely within the discretion of the Commission and cannot be ordered by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 13944
Full Text of Decision 13944
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Board's recommendation not accepted. Instead the Commission has undertaken, and in my view reasonably so, to conduct its own investigation into claimant's ability to return overpayment. The discretion under reg._60 is a matter for the Commission and notfor the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
Decision 13594
Full Text of Decision 13594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
It is well established that the power to forego payment pursuant to reg. 60(1)(e) is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission; it cannot be exercised by an Umpire or a Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
government programs |
|
|
Decision 13523
Full Text of Decision 13523
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Error by CEIC. On reading Reg. 60, it is clear that the discretion to write off belongs exclusively to the Commission, not to the Umpire. Explains reasons.
Decision 13015
Full Text of Decision 13015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Regrettably, I have no jurisdiction to write off the overpayment. This power is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission, and may not be exercised by a Board or an Umpire. The blame for the sizeable overpayment lies with the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
reduction in hours |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
with diligence |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
Decision 12980
Full Text of Decision 12980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
He is appealing the claim for refund of overpayment. This is a matter for the Commission alone to decide under reg._60 and is not within the jurisdiction of the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 12783
Full Text of Decision 12783
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The Commission is the only tribunal which can decide whether repayment should be waived under reg. 60. There is some powerful merit in what was stated in CUB 12443. Even an overpaid claimant has the right to the protection of the law, as described in the Bill of Rights.
Decision 12739
Full Text of Decision 12739
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
I note that under reg. 60 the Commission has authority to forgive overpayments. This is a matter within the discretion of the Commission, and not the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
warning prior to disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 12682
Full Text of Decision 12682
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Weekly rate corrected retroactively. The claimant may wish to apply to the Commission to exercise its discretion under reg. 60 and waive part or all of the overpayment. I have no authority to do so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
Decision 12632
Full Text of Decision 12632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
It has been repeatedly held that the discretion under reg._60 lies solely with the Commission and that any decision in that regard is not reviewable by either an Umpire or a Board.
Decision 12443
Full Text of Decision 12443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
I cannot, in law, waive the repayment. Only the CEIC has such power. I suggest that the UI Act be amended to make someone, such as an Umpire, the decider as to whether one is a proper case for waiving the repayment. Otherwise, the CEIC acts as the collector, prosecutor and judge.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
hardship defined |
|
Decision 12353
Full Text of Decision 12353
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
I would respectfully suggest to the Commission that it review this case to see whether it should exercise its discretion under reg. 60 to write off on the grounds of hardship all or part of the overpayment. This is not a matter which I can decide.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
incomes |
|
|
Decision 12344
Full Text of Decision 12344
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
It is a shocking situation but the only body that has the power to waive collection is the Commission itself. The Board of Referees have no power to order a waiver, nor have I.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
hairdressing |
|
|
Decision 11927
Full Text of Decision 11927
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Under Reg. 60, CEIC has exclusive jurisdiction to write off any amount owing for penalties and overpayment.
Decision 11914
Full Text of Decision 11914
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
This can only be done by the Commission itself. It is not within the powers of an Umpire to write off amounts which have been paid in error. This is true regardless of who caused the error. Any possible errors by the Commission do not relieve claimant of her obligation to repay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Decision 11732
Full Text of Decision 11732
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Umpires have no authority to reduce or waive the repayment of amounts which have been incorrectly paid. The right to take such action is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
insurability |
|
Decision 11509
Full Text of Decision 11509
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
It is well established that this power to forego payment is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission and may not be exercised either by the Umpire or a Board.
Decision 10994
Full Text of Decision 10994
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
This discretion to waive or cancel overpayments is vested solely in the Commission; there is no discretion in an Umpire to so direct. It is, however, open to me to recommend to the Commission that it give consideration to reg. 60.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision A-0233.79
Full Text of Decision A-0233.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
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]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 24609
Full Text of Decision 24609
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
recourse |
Summary:
In matters relating to write-offs the discretion rests with the Commission (see CORNISH-HARDY). Thus, it is not left up to the Umpire to examine a claimant's financial statements in order to determine whether or not a write-off is warranted.
Decision 23378
Full Text of Decision 23378
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
recourse |
Summary:
For claimants to challenge a wrongful exercise of discretion by the Commission, they would have to bring a s. 18 application to the Federal Court Trial Division, an expensive and time consuming procedure which essentially denies individuals any viable recourse to challenge a misuse of discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
permanent contract for less than 12 months |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
hardship defined |
|
Decision 15929
Full Text of Decision 15929
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
recourse |
Summary:
The exercise of the CEIC's discretion under reg.60 is reviewable by the appropriate court but not by Board or Umpire. See CORNISH-HARDY. The Board exceeded its jurisdiction by limiting the amount of claimant's liability under s.49.
Decision A-0647.78
Full Text of Decision A-0647.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
recourse |
Summary:
Section 79 (now section 114) of the Act confers a right of appeal on "claimant" as defined aggrieved by a decision of the Commission on a claim or reconsideration under section 43 (now section 52) of the EIA. Paragraph 44(i) (now 54(k)) was not intented to authorize and Regulation 175 (now 56) do not provide for appeals against the Commission's refusal to write-off an overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
who |
