| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Disentitled retroactively. She had disclosed her pregnancy but was paid by error. Decision overruled by the Board on the ground that no new facts were revealed for the Commission to open investigation of her file [p. 5]. New facts not required under s.43. Error of law. [p. 12-14]
As per CUB 5664, the Commission does not have the power to act retroactively on a decision based on a judgment of a discretionary nature made by a competent officer, except when a new fact is presented. I share these views. [p. 15]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Disentitled retroactively. She had disclosed her pregnancy but was paid by error. Decision overruled by the Board on the ground that no new facts were revealed for the Commission to open investigation of her file [p. 5]. New facts not required under s.43. Error of law. [p. 12-14]
