Decision A-0020.00
Full Text of Decision A-0020.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
The BOR had refused to allow the claimant to put in evidence before it of her job search in order to demonstrate that her involvement with the business was only minor. The FCA held that the Umpire erred in refusing to receive the claimant's evidence regarding the Board's refusal to look at her job search. A Board is normally obliged to hear such evidence and its refusal to do so, if unexplained, could be found by an Umpire to be a denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision A-0145.00
Full Text of Decision A-0145.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Held that since the facts in question existed before the hearing was held in the first case, they only qualify as "new facts" if they could not reasonably have been discovered by the applicant before the first decision was rendered and, if they had been adduced, they would have been decisive of the issue that the Umpire had to decide. Reference made to the FCA decision in Chan (A-0185.94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 39704B
Full Text of Decision 39704B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0145.00
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 37417
Full Text of Decision 37417
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Claimant had received $4 000.00 from the EWPP. BOR found that that monies should not be allocated as earnings because of the 36 months limit as such, as set out in s. 43(1) of the Act, had run out. Umpire stated that section 37 does not involve a decision falling within the purview of either s. 43(1) or s. 86 and concluded that an EWPP payment is propersly defined as "earnings" pursuant to the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
claimant's liability |
|
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 24870
Full Text of Decision 24870
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Claimant's legal counsel alleges that the Commission does not have the power to reconsider a decision when all the facts which could have prevented the paying of benefits were known to it. I believe that this argument cannot succeed. It is s. 43 which empowers the Commission to reconsider a claim.
Decision 19382
Full Text of Decision 19382
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
CEIC notes, 2 years after termination of employment, that she has not deducted severance pay of $28,000. I am of the opinion that para. 43(1) gives power to retroactively correct administrative error; CUB-5664 not applicable: CEIC did not have power to grant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 19346
Full Text of Decision 19346
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Ss.43(1) does not require new facts. I reject the argument that 43(1) is limited to the claims themselves and not the Commission's own decisions. It clearly applies to any circumstance whereby on a review it appears that there has been an overpayment ofbenefits. [p._10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision T-1765.89
Full Text of Decision T-1765.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
As noted in FORTIN, the sole purpose of s. 43 is to give the Commission the authority to rectify any error in the processing of claims, and the Commission is not obliged to reconsider a claim at the sole request of an interested party.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
change in jurisprudence |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
Decision 17341
Full Text of Decision 17341
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
The Commission may not consider the same facts anew and modify its prior decision. From the outset, it was aware of the severance pay received by claimant and decided to grant him UI. It could not subsequently annul its decision unless there are new facts or evidence of an administrative error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 13922
Full Text of Decision 13922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0607.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
date of liability |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision A-0607.87
Full Text of Decision A-0607.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
The system created in s. 35 and 43 is an exceptional one, which is a departure of the ordinary law. These sections must be strictly construed. They give the CEIC exceptional powers in which it is both judge and jury to determine its debt itself.
It is now established that s. 86 cannot serve as a legal basis for a power of the CEIC to determine by itself that benefits have been overpaid and ask for repayment. This power is conferred on the CEIC by s. 43 and only that section is linked to s. 35 of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
date of liability |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision A-0637.86
Full Text of Decision A-0637.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
"Notwithstanding s. 86" means "without being impeded by s. 86". Power to reconsider much broader, entirely different from that in s. 43. They are not interchangeable and they cannot be used indifferently. One could not rely on s. 86 when out of time under s. 43.
Purpose of s. 86 applicable to CEIC, Board and Umpire; different purposes sought by s. 35 and 43. The power conferred to CEIC is of the same type as that granted to Boards or Umpires. CEIC's administrative decision under s. 43 allowing fresh decisions on its own initiative.
The CEIC must proceed under s. 43 if the result of its new decision is to require that an overpayment be repaid, a power which does not flow from the exercise of its right to amend under s. 86. Significantly these sections are found in 2 distinct parts of the Act.
The recovery and the prescription of claims are covered by s. 35 which necessarily results in the application of s. 43. The effects of ss. 43(3) and (5) are that the right to recover overpayments is dependent on the power conferred by 43(1) and in no way dependent under 86.
As per CEIC, s. 43 and 86 cover the same ground: s. 86 remains available because no time is prescribed while s. 43 includes specific constraints; s. 86 has the effect of preserving in cases of fraud the benefit of the long prescription. This argument cannot be upheld.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
date of liability |
|
| claim procedure |
documents sent by mail |
presumption |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 14880
Full Text of Decision 14880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Claimant, a teacher, was paid UI in July. It appears that there should have been grounds for further inquiry before benefits paid. The Commission could have had the necessary information as early as when claim filed. Regrettably, I am unable to correct that situation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
contract terminating with end of school year |
|
|
| teaching |
charter |
|
|
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 13367
Full Text of Decision 13367
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Employment ruled non insurable 1 1/2 years later. Claimant contended that the Commission should be estopped from recovering the overpayment. Whatever the merit of that argument may be, it is not one that an Umpire can address. The liability arises by law under s.36, not by a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 13083
Full Text of Decision 13083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Rate of benefit; regardless of who was source of error, Act gives Commission authority to correct it retroactively and in any event mistake is not a source of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
record of employment erroneous |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 13045
Full Text of Decision 13045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Real estate salesperson neither unemployed nor available. Not only does the Commission have a right to require repayment, but under s.43 it has a duty to do so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision A-1780.83
Full Text of Decision A-1780.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Collected UI until 11-76. Damages awarded for wrongful dismissal in 1981. We cannot agree that s.86 has any application here. Matter covered by 38(1) and limitation period in s.43 has no application.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 08839
Full Text of Decision 08839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Disentitled retroactively. She had disclosed her pregnancy but was paid by error. Decision overruled by the Board on the ground that no new facts were revealed for the Commission to open investigation of her file [p. 5]. New facts not required under s.43. Error of law. [p. 12-14]
As per CUB 5664, the Commission does not have the power to act retroactively on a decision based on a judgment of a discretionary nature made by a competent officer, except when a new fact is presented. I share these views. [p. 15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision S-0392.78
summary
| 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]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A-0582.79
Full Text of Decision A-0582.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
I do not believe that the CEIC had the power to use s. 43 to retroactively reconsider a decision based on exercise of discretion (s. 14, 27 or 28) unless there is a new fact, according to the Umpire. No comment by the FC.
Question submitted to Minister of Revenue several months before UI claim made and employment ruled uninsurable. We believe that the CEIC was entitled to exercise the power conferred on it by s. 43 and claim the amounts owing.
The phrase "Notwithstanding s. 86" added in 1976 did not extend the scope of s. 43. The fact that mistake is not a source of law cannot create a right leads me to believe that s. 43 was not rigidly circumscribed by s. 86, according to the Umpire.
Under s. 43, CEIC has the power, and even the duty, to retroactively correct an administrative error resulting in payment of benefit, and to claim the overpayment under s. 35, according to the Umpire. Upheld in the FC.
Decision A-0233.79
Full Text of Decision A-0233.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Summary:
Computer fed with erroneous data on rates of unemployment. It was argued that s.43 contemplates reconsideration of a decision and that there was here no decision but only an error in processing data. S.43 is authority to reconsider "any claim", i.e. a right to benefit. [p.17]
The words "not entitled" in s.43 are neither another part of speech nor another grammatical form of the word "disentitled" in ss.5(1) within the meaning of s.26(8) of the Interpretation Act. [p.19]
The words "not entitled" in s.43 are not limited to the "disentitling" clauses enumerated in 5(1). In their plain meaning, they clearly cover the case of a person who was paid extended benefits beyond termination of the benefit period. [p.18]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0392.78
Full Text of Decision A-0392.78
summary
| 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]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
