Decision 31825
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 31825 | Stevenson | English | 1996-01-10 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allowed | No | N/A | - |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: |
|---|---|---|---|
| board of referees | errors in law | discretionary power |
Summary:
There is a clear intention (s.86 of the Act) that it is only the BOR that gave the original decision that may entertain new facts and then, if appropriate, rescind or amend its earlier decision. (reference made to Brière v. CEIC)