| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay not substantial |
|
Summary:
While it recognized that the Commission had a discretion in the matter (extension of the time to appeal), the FCA drew the Commission's attention to factors such as the seriousness of a determination that false or misleading statements had been made, the amount of penalty imposed and the fact that there was a delay of only one month after the time limit for the appeal. The FCA viewed all these as "special reasons" to be taken into account by the Commission in exercising its discretion.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
While it recognized that the Commission had a discretion in the matter (extension of the time to appeal), the FCA drew the Commission's attention to factors such as the seriousness of a determination that false or misleading statements had been made, the amount of penalty imposed and the fact that there was a delay of only one month after the time limit for the appeal. The FCA viewed all these as "special reasons" to be taken into account by the Commission in exercising its discretion.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
Summary:
Claimant's son picked up notices of decision dated 28-9-94 and put them in a drawer. Claimant was told of the letters in 11-94 and, while outside the delay, promptly notified the Commission of his desire to appeal. The Commission refused to extend the time. Both the BOR and the Umpire refused to interfere. The FCA allowed the application on the basis that the BOR had erred in law when considering the test for an extension of time to appeal to be whether or not there was "good cause" for the delay rather than considering the possibility of allowing an extension "for special reasons" as stipulated in the legislation. In so finding, the FCA made it clear however that they didn't accept the claimant's submission that he could not be considered to have received the notice of the Commission's decision until he found it in his house.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
claim procedure |
good cause |
negligence |
Summary:
Claimant's son picked up notices of decision dated 28-9-94 and put them in a drawer. Claimant was told of the letters in 11-94 and, while outside the delay, promptly notified the Commission of his desire to appeal. The Commission refused to extend the time. Both the BOR and the Umpire refused to interfere. The FCA allowed the application on the basis that the BOR had erred in law when considering the test for an extension of time to appeal to be whether or not there was "good cause" for the delay rather than considering the possibility of allowing an extension "for special reasons" as stipulated in the legislation. In so finding, the FCA made it clear however that they didn't accept the claimant's submission that he could not be considered to have received the notice of the Commission's decision until he found it in his house.
