| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
Summary:
Umpire stated that the four requirements of subsection 43(1) must be satisfied within the prescribed time frame; they need not be met simultaneously or concurrently. However, the Commission did not comply with the requirements of subsection 43(1) of the Act, since the claimant had not received any notification regarding the amount of the overpayment, which had only been indicated in the Commission's observations to the BOR. Umpire explained that the notification should have been served on the claimant prior to the BOR hearing. Umpire concluded therefore that the Commission's reconsideration had been done in an irregular and illegal way. FCA overturned the decision on the ground that the requirements of section 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Act dealing with notification of overpayments had been met.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
date of liability |
Summary:
Umpire stated that the four requirements of subsection 43(1) must be satisfied within the prescribed time frame; they need not be met simultaneously or concurrently. However, the Commission did not comply with the requirements of subsection 43(1) of the Act, since the claimant had not received any notification regarding the amount of the overpayment, which had only been indicated in the Commission's observations to the BOR. Umpire explained that the notification should have been served on the claimant prior to the BOR hearing. Umpire concluded therefore that the Commission's reconsideration had been done in an irregular and illegal way. FCA overturned the decision on the ground that the requirements of section 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Act dealing with notification of overpayments had been met.
