Decision A-0672.95

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0672.95 Tjong Helen  Federal  English 1996-10-03
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Unanimous - Returned to the ump  No Commission  28250A 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
courses of instruction or training  benefit period terminated before course started 

Summary:

Commission approved claimant to start course prior to termination of benefit period. Course delayed by Public Service strike. She started the course after her benefit had expired and received benefits due to a computer error. Umpire held that benefit was not paid in error. FCA concluded that even if it could be said that payments were not made in error, that alone in law would not entitle the claimant to the benefits as the payments were made in contradiction of the Act. Cites Bissonnette (A-425-85), Champagne (A-526-85) and Boileau (A-692-94).


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim  errors by Commission  not a ground of entitlement 

Summary:

Commission approved claimant to start course prior to termination of benefit period. Course delayed by Public Service strike. She started the course after her benefit had expired and received benefits due to a computer error. Umpire held that benefit was not paid in error. FCA concluded that even if it could be said that payments were not made in error, that alone in law would not entitle the claimant to the benefits as the payments were made in contradiction of the Act. Cites Bissonnette (A-425-85), Champagne (A-526-85) and Boileau (A-692-94).


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim  errors by Commission  legal remedy 

Summary:

Commission approved claimant to start course prior to termination of benefit period. Course delayed by Public Service strike. She started the course after her benefit had expired and received benefits due to a computer error. Umpire held that benefit was not paid in error. FCA concluded that even if it could be said that payments were not made in error, that alone in law would not entitle the claimant to the benefits as the payments were made in contradiction of the Act. Cites Bissonnette (A-425-85), Champagne (A-526-85) and Boileau (A-692-94).


Date modified: