| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
I do not believe that the CEIC had the power to use s. 43 to retroactively reconsider a decision based on exercise of discretion (s. 14, 27 or 28) unless there is a new fact, according to the Umpire. No comment by the FC.
Question submitted to Minister of Revenue several months before UI claim made and employment ruled uninsurable. We believe that the CEIC was entitled to exercise the power conferred on it by s. 43 and claim the amounts owing.
The phrase "Notwithstanding s. 86" added in 1976 did not extend the scope of s. 43. The fact that mistake is not a source of law cannot create a right leads me to believe that s. 43 was not rigidly circumscribed by s. 86, according to the Umpire.
Under s. 43, CEIC has the power, and even the duty, to retroactively correct an administrative error resulting in payment of benefit, and to claim the overpayment under s. 35, according to the Umpire. Upheld in the FC.
