| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
weigh evidence * |
|
Summary:
The FCA indicated that the BOR properly determined that it had no jurisdiction to order the Commission to write off the overpayments. It also noted that the BOR committed no legal error in declining to place the onus of proof of the overpayments on the Commission since the decision taken by the Commission creates a debt which becomes executory against the applicant as soon as he/she is notified of the amount to be repaid. As a result, if an applicant appeals a Notice of Debt, he/she bears tho onus of demonstrating the inaccuracy of the amount specified. Similar cases: A0523.08, A0526.08, A0527.08 and A0528.08.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
umpires |
errors in law |
|
Summary:
The FCA held that the Umpire erred in law by failing to correctly identify and decide the question that was before him. The Umpire determined that the issue was whether the employees had earnings subject to allocation under ss. 35 and 36 of the Regulations. The FCA held that this was incorrect because the appeals were directed at the Notices of Debt. The FCA rejected the argument that Notices of Debt cannot be the subject of an appeal on the basis of s. 52(2) of the EIA. Although there is no mention of this in the decision, this conclusion appears to be in contradiction with earlier decisions of the FCA. However, the FCA also noted that the basis upon which the Notices of Debt were challenged was not clear. Similar cases: A0523.08, A0526.08, A0527.08 and A0528.08.
