| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
jurisdiction |
|
|
Summary:
FCA maintained that the evidence before the Tax Court of Canada could not be accepted as evidence before the FCA. To support this suit for damages, the same evidence would have to be produced again if it were deemed to be useful.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant instituted a lawsuit for damages and interest concerning benefits that were paid in 1996 instead of 1993. The Minister of National Revenue had determined that the claimant’s employment was not insurable, and that she therefore could not receive benefits because she did not have enough insurable weeks. The Tax Court of Canada reversed the MNR’s decision, finding that the employment was insurable. The claimant thus became entitled to receive benefit. FCA found that the evidence produced by the claimant did not prove that the officials of the Department or of the Commission had committed any error whatsoever in handling her case. For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.** FCA maintained that the evidence before the Tax Court of Canada could not be accepted as evidence before the FCA. To support this suit for damages, the same evidence would have to be produced again if it were deemed to be useful.
