| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
charter |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence has now made clear that a prohibited distinction under the Charter must be based on a ground referred to in s.15. The distinction of which the claimant complains is as between a pension connected to past employment and a purchased annuity.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
This is not a proper ground for the exercise by me of a power of rescission of my decision pursuant to s.86. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in no way constitutes "new facts". Cases already decided cannot be constantly reopened because of laterlegal interpretations.
Nor does the ground based on s.15 of the Charter involve any "new facts" under s.86 or demonstrate any mistake of fact in my decision of 4-91. In relying on s.15 at this time, the claimant is simply raising a legal argument which he could have raised before me at the hearing.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Summary:
Nor does the ground based on s.15 of the Charter involve any "new facts" under s.86 or demonstrate any mistake of fact in my decision of 4-91. In relying on s.15 at this time, the claimant is simply raising a legal argument which he could have raised before me at the hearing.
This is not a proper ground for the exercise by me of a power of rescission of my decision pursuant to s.86. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in no way constitutes "new facts". Cases already decided cannot be constantly reopened because of laterlegal interpretations.
