| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Summary:
Earlier termination of the benefit period under the amended clause does not apply to claimant and termination under the former clause has been revoked. Under the Interpretation Act, the privilege he was enjoying continues but not any longer than as it existed before. [p.9-11]
The new provisions provide for termination of the benefit period when claimant attains 65 and the statute clearly assumes this event will be in the future. This did not apply to claimant having attained 65 prior to the amendment date. [p._8]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The Commission, like any other government body, could be held responsible for making damage caused by its mistakes but this could not be invoked to contravene the very Act the Commission had been created to administer. Its actions may not be a source ofrights. [p._16]
The Commission itself urged claimants to apply for pension and this was later held against them to deny UI. This action has extremely regrettable aspects. The rights of individuals under the Act cannot result solely from the Commission's conduct howeverregrettable. [p._15]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Benefit periods terminated retroactively to amendment date of s.31. The Commission invoked, after the event, a reason which it had long known to exist, but it had no choice. It held against claimants a situation which it had created itself. [PIGEON J., p.16]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
The courts are strictly required to apply the law as written and may not depart from the clear meaning of the provisions enacted by Parliament to give effect to a presumed intention not expressed. [PIGEON J., p.18-19]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The Commission, like any other government body, could be held responsible for making damage caused by its mistakes but this could not be invoked to contravene the very Act the Commission had been created to administer. Its actions may not be a source ofrights. [p._16]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Summary:
The courts are strictly required to apply the law as written and may not depart from the clear meaning of the provisions enacted by Parliament to give effect to a presumed intention not expressed. [PIGEON J., p.18-19]
