| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
calculation |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire had erred at the outset in imposing upon the Commission the obligation to notify the claimant of the calculated amount. This notification is required by s. 43 of the Act, and FCA has recalled, in Brien and Rajotte, that it is not subject to any precise formal requirement.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
Summary:
FCA ruled that when a notice of appeal is filed before the process defined in subsection 43(1) is completed, this notice is premature and nothing prevents the Commission from completing the process. The Commission may go so far as to complete the process by giving notice of the overpayment amount contained in its written submissions to the BOR. Consequently, in the case at bar, the appeal notice filed by the claimant was premature, as he had not yet been notified of the amount of the overpayment.
| 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:
FCA found that the Umpire had erred at the outset in imposing upon the Commission the obligation to notify the claimant of the calculated amount. This notification is required by s. 43 of the Act, and FCA has recalled, in Brien and Rajotte, that it is not subject to any precise formal requirement. ** FCA ruled that when a notice of appeal is filed before the process defined in subsection 43(1) is completed, this notice is premature and nothing prevents the Commission from completing the process. The Commission may go so far as to complete the process by giving notice of the overpayment amount contained in its written submissions to the BOR. Consequently, in the case at bar, the appeal notice filed by the claimant was premature, as he had not yet been notified of the amount of the overpayment.
