Decision A0481.10
Full Text of Decision A0481.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
On October 28, 1999, the employer informed all its employees that the plant would be closing and paid an amount as floating holiday pay, severance pay and vacation pay. The Commission allocated the amounts as of October 24, 1999. By decision dated December 13, 2007, the BOR concluded that the separation of employment occurred on December 31, 1999, and that the earnings should be allocated as of that date. The Commission allocated the earnings as of December 31, 1999, re-calculated the overpayments for each claimant and issued new notices of overpayment. By another decision dated June 26, 2009, the BOR allowed the claimants appeal finding that the revised notices of overpayment constituted new decisions made outside of the timeframe of s. 52 of the EIA and also found that the new decisions constituted new facts under s. 120 of the EIA. The FCA concluded that the Commission’s actions following the December 13, 2007, decision were merely an application of this decision and not new decisions. Consequently, the deadline for reconsideration found at s. 52 of the EIA was not applicable to the situation. With respect to s. 120 of the EIA, the FCA found that the Commission’s new calculations were not new facts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A0302.10
Full Text of Decision A0302.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The claimant requested a reconsideration of the Umpire's decision pursuant to s. 120 of the EIA. This request was denied because it did not meet the test for reconsideration. The FCA reiterated the principle that absent special circumstances, it would not use a judicial review of the reconsideration decision as a vehicle for a collateral attack of the original decision. The FCA held there were no special circumstances or reviewable error in the reconsideration decision warranting its intervention.
Decision A0353.09
Full Text of Decision A0353.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
This appeal pertained to an overpayment caused by the allocation of amounts in the application of the EIA. The main issue under appeal was whether the time limit for reconsideration by the Commission (s. 52 EIA) applies when there is a recalculation of benefits following the obligation of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act court appointed monitor to pay excess earnings directly to the Commission rather than to the claimants in order to avoid double compensation (s. 46 EIA). The Commission's position, which was upheld by the FCA in its decision, was that the time limit does not apply in this type of situation. Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Decision 66227A
Full Text of Decision 66227A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
This case involves Canada Revenue Agency rulings in 1994 that the claimant's employments in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 to be non-insurable and consequential retroactive decisions of the Commission creating overpayments and imposing penalties for false statements. Over the years, a chain of appeals to the Tax Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Board of Referees put into suspension the limitation period, with the result that the limitation period remains intact. Since the penalties imposed on the claimant had been established and were owing before the section on interest came into force, interest must be applied to the claimant's debt.
Decision A0067.05
Full Text of Decision A0067.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
This case involved several members of the same family. The Court affirmed that subsection 43(6) of the UI Act (now 52(6) of the EI Act) only requires that a statement be false or misleading to allow for a reconsideration within 6 years as opposed to 3 years under subsection 43(1) of the UI Act (now 52(1) of the EI Act) for all other instances. Whether the false or misleading statements are the result of information or advice from the Commission is an unfounded argument since subsection 43(6) of the UI Act (now 52(6) of the EI Act) only requires that the statement be false or misleading for the Commission to be able to reconsider the claim for benefit. The decisions for the other family members are : A-66-05, A-68-05, A-69-05, A-70-05, A-72-05, A-73-05 and A-74-05.
Decision A-0646.02
Full Text of Decision A-0646.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The Commission allocated the claimant's earnings over a prior period of more than three years, determining that he had made a false or misleading statement by not declaring these earnings. The Court pointed out that the Commission must be reasonably satisfied that a false or misleading statement has been made, and that it does not need to analyze the claimant's motives.
Decision 55335
Full Text of Decision 55335
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0646.02
Decision A-172.01
Full Text of Decision A-172.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The Umpire, and before him the Board of Referees, erred in their interpretation of s. 52(5) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in Pilote (A-0868.97), the false or misleading statement or representation referred to in the said section does not have to be made "knowingly", unlike that mentioned in s. 38.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0140.01
Full Text of Decision A-0140.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in imposing on the Commission the burden of proving that the claimant had knowingly made false statements. The only requirement is to deem that a false or misleading statement has been made. Reference made to the decision of the FCA in Pilotte (A-868-97). However, the Commission did not discharge its burden of proving that there was a false declaration. The provision that allows reconsideration is part of a scheme of exception and goes beyond the common law. It must therefore be interpreted restrictively.
Decision A-0476.00
Full Text of Decision A-0476.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The Commission reviewed three applications for benefits dating from more than three years ago. The board of referees found that the claimant had made a false or misleading statement, but did not explain the reasons for that finding. The umpire could not simply assume that the board had decided the issue. Matter referred back for re-determination.
Decision 50485
Full Text of Decision 50485
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0140.01.
Decision 50795
Full Text of Decision 50795
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0172.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision T-2986.92
Full Text of Decision T-2986.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that following his acquittal of the charge, the Commission should correct its finding that the claimant had made false statements. The result would be that the Commission would have a period of only 3 years, instead of 6, to render its decision. This argument was dismissed by the Court. In the first place, the Commission's notice was delivered in the period before the acquittal. Secondly, the acquittal did not occur after a debate on the merits, but for technical reasons. Moreover, the civil case must not be bound by the criminal case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to recover |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Decision 47550
Full Text of Decision 47550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0476.00
Decision A-0868.97
Full Text of Decision A-0868.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
No penalty imposed, but reconsideration of the claim after the 36 months. Time expired according to the Umpire and no o/p can be claimed. According to the FCA, the Umpire erred in seeing a relationship between section 33 (penalty) and subsection 43(6) (reconsideration). Not imposing a penalty does not prevent the Commission from finding that a false or misleading statement has been made and using the additional 36-month period for reconsidering a claim.
Decision A-0874.97
Full Text of Decision A-0874.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had rightly refused to write off the debt and the Umpire erred in not cancelling the BOR's decision in this respect. The debtor should have proceeded by requesting a judicial review before the Trial Division of the FCA and not by appealing to the Umpire. Obviously the Commission must record its decision and convey it to the person concerned.
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 |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 39303
Full Text of Decision 39303
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
A benefit claim commencing 4-10-92 was refused because the claimant had not been without work and without remuneration for at least seven consecutive days. Umpire upheld this decision. However, Umpire noted that under subsection 43(1) of the Act, the Commission has 36 months to reconsider a benefit claim in situations where, as in the case at bar, there has been no determination that the claimant made a false or misleading statement. Umpire therefore concluded that the Commission could claim overpayment only as of 29-03-93 because the notice of overpayment was only given to the claimant on 29-03-96. **Decision appealed to the FCA. The Commission is of the opinion that subsection 43(6) applied to the case considered because a warning letter had been issued to the claimant. Consequently, the Commission had 72 months in which to recover the overpayment.
Decision A-0988.96
Full Text of Decision A-0988.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
FCA dismissed the applicant’s proposal that would have prevented the Commission from reconsidering a claim within the 72-month period set out in ss. 43(6) of the Act if it had previously brought criminal proceedings against the claimant for false or misleading statements or representations.
Decision A-0989.96
Full Text of Decision A-0989.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Guy Pelletier, see summary indexed as A-0988.96.
Decision A-0676.96
Full Text of Decision A-0676.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
FCA rejected the Umpire’s argument that the Commission did not meet the requirements of s. 43 of the Act regarding notification. It added that, with respect to the facts in this case, there is no doubt that the claimant was notified of the amount to be repaid before the hearing before the BOR and that he never claimed any different. Therefore, the FCA found that the Umpire’s decision is irreconcilable since the argument put forward by the Umpire was rejected in Rajotte (A-0426.96). In Rajotte, the Umpire said that, it does not matter whether the various steps set out in ss. 43(1) were covered the same day, or whether the claimant was informed of the various decisions made in his regard as they were made, since the only moment that counts is the moment when the process is finished, that is, the moment the claimant is notified by the Commission of the amount of the overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0425.96
Full Text of Decision A-0425.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Michel Rajotte. See summary indexed under A-0426.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
date of liability |
|
Decision A-0426.96
Full Text of Decision A-0426.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
FCA holds that it does not matter whether the various steps set out in subsection 43(1) were carried out the same day, whether the claimant was informed of the decisions about him as they were being made or at the end of the process, or whether these various decisions were included in a single document since the only moment that counts is the moment when the process is completed, that is, the moment when the claimant is notified by the Commission of the amount of the overpayment.** Since the notification of the amount of overpayment is what is used to determine whether the process in section 43 has been completed, and since the notification of this notice is what is used to determine whether the claims that were reconsidered fall within the 36-month period set out in this section, it is inconceivable that the Commission does not keep a copy.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
date of liability |
|
Decision 37417
Full Text of Decision 37417
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
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 |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
claimant's liability |
|
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
Decision 27328
Full Text of Decision 27328
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Monies received from the Ontario Employee Wage Protection Program. It is argued that the Commission exceeded the 36-month time limit for reconsideration under ss. 43(1). The limitation period prescribed by ss. 43(1) does not apply to such a payment. See CUB 19770.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
Decision 23335
Full Text of Decision 23335
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Referred to BRIÈRE and LAFOREST. The record does not show that the claimant was ever duly notified of the amount of the overpayment. In my opinion, EIC has not satisfied the requirements of ss. 43(1) of the Act, namely to calculate the amount properly paid and to notify the claimant of this amount.
Decision 22668
Full Text of Decision 22668
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The counsel, citing COURTY, argued that EIC had to prove fraud on the claimant's part in order to avail itself of the extension of time provided for in ss. 43(6). This jurisprudence does not apply to the case at bar. 43(6) does not require to establish that the false statement was made knowingly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 22393A
Full Text of Decision 22393A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
I conclude that CEIC must reexamine a request within 36 months (72 in the case of fraud) following the date when benefits were paid to the claimant and must notify the latter of its decision. If it does not respect this deadline for reexamination and notification, the overpayment cannot be collected.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Decision 20994
Full Text of Decision 20994
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Worked on the side; no penalty imposed; last benefits paid 6-86; case reexamined 10-89; notice sent 8-90; pointing out 36-month period is over. Case examined within timeframe provided for in para. 43(6) which is 72 months; agree with CUB-18833.
Decision 19791
Full Text of Decision 19791
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
It is true that CEIC has 36 months to reexamine any application. However, if error made by CEIC leads to overpayment and if delay in advising beneficiary makes it impossible for him to prove his case, it is surely not he who should suffer the consequences.
Decision 19770
Full Text of Decision 19770
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The Federal Court has already decided that the Commission cannot rely upon s.86 to justify its right to recover overpayment of benefits, when it has failed to abide by the time limits set out in s.43: BRIERE and LAFOREST.
The Federal Court indicated in WHEATON that s.38 is independent of s.43 and 86 and that the time limitation imposed by s.43 does not apply to such repayments. Applying this here, I find that s.43 does not apply to overpayments under s.37.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Decision 19382
Full Text of Decision 19382
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
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 |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 18970
Full Text of Decision 18970
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The CEIC admits that had it acted promptly there would have been no overpayment. The test for recovery is simply whether it is due under the legislation. If that be the case then tardiness on the part of the CEIC in applying the legislation does not change its application.
Decision 18833
Full Text of Decision 18833
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Subsection 43(6) allows CEIC to reexamine an application if it considers that a false statement was made. It does not specify by whom the statement must have been made. It can have been made by the employer in a record of employment. It is not necessary to prove complicity.
Decision 15239A
Full Text of Decision 15239A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Allocation of vacation pay. Claimant emphasized the unfairness of the Commission having reversed itself twice with respect to his claim. Unfortunately, the Commission is at liberty to change its rulings for up to 3 years after making them.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 15390
Full Text of Decision 15390
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
He also received a Notice of Penalty which was later withdrawn. He says that reconsideration of claim was not allowed under ss.43(1): more than 36 months. I am in full accord with the Commission that 43(6) applies since he never informed the Commission that he was working. He made a false statement.
Decision 13922
Full Text of Decision 13922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
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 |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
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 |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
It was held in BRIÈRE that notification is essential to complete the decision-making process created by ss. 43(1). It must take place within the specified 36 months deadline in order to give the CEIC a right of action and recovery.
The Umpire concluded that the CEIC had lost its right of recovery for UI overpaid before 25-4-82 because of the delay in sending its notice of 25-4-85. The Umpire's reading of 43(1) is not only the first that comes naturally to mind, but the only one which it can be given.
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 |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
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 |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Fraudulent claims under assumed names from 1-10-74 to 15-3-76. On 29-6-81, the CEIC could recover benefits paid six years earlier, namely on 29-6-75. However, the debtor did not receive the notice of 29-6. **According to ss. 43(1) and (6), from the moment that benefits are paid, the CEIC has 3 or 6 years to reconsider a claim, decide on entitlement, calculate the debt and notify the claimant of its decision, all within that time frame. Notification invalid if the period has expired. **S. 43 gives the CEIC the authority to establish a repayment obligation that it can enforce under common law. Once the time period has expired, it can no longer act as the authority and enforce justice itself. It must have recourse to regular courts of law. [Marceau, J.] **According to the CEIC, since it was trying to recover the proceeds of fraud, it had 30 years to act under common law. However, action was not taken against the claimant under common law and, therefore, the UI prescriptions apply. [p. 6-8] **According to the CEIC, s. 43 and s. 86 sometimes overlap: s. 86 is open-ended because it does not prescribe a time period, whereas s. 43 has a number of restrictions; s. 86 provides a longer period for action in cases of fraud. Untenable argument. **”Notwithstanding section 86” means “without being prevented by section 86”. Much broader powers and s. 43 is entirely different. They are not interchangeable and cannot be used indiscriminately. S. 86 cannot be used because the time period set out in s. 43 has expired.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| 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 |
|
Decision 13928
Full Text of Decision 13928
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Claimant realized that she was being overpaid but was told by the Commission to keep it. Repayment later requested. 36 months under s.43 and 35 despite any advice to the contrary by Commission's staff. Staff not empowered to alter that requirement.
Decision 13934
Full Text of Decision 13934
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Earnings ignored initially and then retroactive ruling. Argues that the Commission is bound by initial advice. Staff have no authority to waive legislative requirement. If error made and benefit paid, the Commission has 3 years to rectify the error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
Decision 12626
Full Text of Decision 12626
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Misinformation given to claimant and corrected nearly a year later. The Commission, under ss.43(1), has up to 36 months to reconsider its decision. Claimant employed as janitor separating work and earnings with wife.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Decision 11612
Full Text of Decision 11612
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
It is true that the overpayment was caused in large measure by the Commission error but, under s.43, it has 36 months to reconsider a claim. The law is quite clear. Misinformation cannot entitle claimant to something not provided for in the legislation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 11526
Full Text of Decision 11526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Under ss.43(1), the Commission may reconsider at any time within 36 months. S.86 applies when the Commission, Board or Umpire is presented with new facts. Under s.43, the Commission can act irrespective of new facts. It has the duty to correct administrative errors.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
record of employment erroneous |
|
Decision 11052
Full Text of Decision 11052
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Misinformation by Commission cannot help claimant. S.43 authorized the Commission to reconsider within 36 months. If it is found that claimant received benefits to which not entitled, s.35 renders her liable to repay. [p._6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
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 |
time limitation |
|
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: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
