| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Ss.43(1) does not require new facts. I reject the argument that 43(1) is limited to the claims themselves and not the Commission's own decisions. It clearly applies to any circumstance whereby on a review it appears that there has been an overpayment ofbenefits. [p._10]
| 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]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
As per CUB 11108, the Commission must rescind that decision, thus aborting the appeal, issue a new decision with a fresh period for appeal. This is in fact what it attempted to do. I believe that it is a reasonable course to follow, consistent with natural justice. [p._8]
