Decision 18970
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 18970 | Martin | English | 1990-12-17 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissed | No | N/A | - |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: |
|---|---|---|---|
| reconsideration of claim | authority to review | time limitation |
Summary:
The CEIC admits that had it acted promptly there would have been no overpayment. The test for recovery is simply whether it is due under the legislation. If that be the case then tardiness on the part of the CEIC in applying the legislation does not change its application.