| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
Claimant contends that it is highly unfair to saddle her with an oppressive overpayment which would never have happened but for the CEIC's mistake. The CEIC did not regard this as a sufficiently compelling reason. The possibility that I might have come to a different decision is totally irrelevant.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
CHARTIER and PLOURDE quoted. The Court did not feel constrained to further elaborate on what might be considered relevant or irrelevant considerations. Case law examined with respect to the meaning of those words.
