| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire erred in law since he did not have the authority to change the Commission’s decision whereby it refused to follow up a recommendation to write off an overpayment. The Commission exercised its authority under Reg. 60 correctly.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
FCA rejected the Umpire’s argument that the Commission did not meet the requirements of s. 43 of the Act regarding notification. It added that, with respect to the facts in this case, there is no doubt that the claimant was notified of the amount to be repaid before the hearing before the BOR and that he never claimed any different. Therefore, the FCA found that the Umpire’s decision is irreconcilable since the argument put forward by the Umpire was rejected in Rajotte (A-0426.96). In Rajotte, the Umpire said that, it does not matter whether the various steps set out in ss. 43(1) were covered the same day, or whether the claimant was informed of the various decisions made in his regard as they were made, since the only moment that counts is the moment when the process is finished, that is, the moment the claimant is notified by the Commission of the amount of the overpayment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire erred in law since he did not have the authority to change the Commission’s decision whereby it refused to follow up a recommendation to write off an overpayment. The Commission exercised its authority under Reg. 60 correctly.
