| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The Board decided that ignorance of the law together with the good faith of the beneficiary were the sufficient justification required by para. 9(4). That is quite contrary to the principles in CARON T. The Board thus erred in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
The Board decided that ignorance of the law together with the good faith of the beneficiary were the sufficient justification required by para. 9(4). That is quite contrary to the principles in CARON T. The Board thus erred in law.
