Summary of Issue: Legal Remedy

Decision T-0777.98 Full Text of Decision T-0777.98

Claimant informed by HRDC employees (3) that her severance pay would not affect the payment of her maternity benefits. Subsequently, the severance pay was allocated which created an overpayment of $4,572. Claimant filed a claim for the total amount of the O/P based on an alleged negligent misrepresentation made by employees of the Commission. The Court recognized that the Commission had misled the claimant but due to the claimant's lack of carrying on her own research as to the state of the law, it was of the view that the claimant should bear half of the dammages. Claimant's action was granted for an amount of $2,286.

Decision A-0815.96 Full Text of Decision A-0815.96

Citing Tjong (A-672-95), FCA upheld the principle that neither the BOR, the Umpire nor the FCA itself had the jurisdiction required to turn the debate into a deliberation on the Commission's liability resulting from a so-called abuse of discretionary power and on the assessment of the hardship allegedly suffered by a claimant compelled to repay benefits received following an error by the Commission.

Decision A-0672.95 Full Text of Decision A-0672.95

Commission approved claimant to start course prior to termination of benefit period. Course delayed by Public Service strike. She started the course after her benefit had expired and received benefits due to a computer error. Umpire held that benefit was not paid in error. FCA concluded that even if it could be said that payments were not made in error, that alone in law would not entitle the claimant to the benefits as the payments were made in contradiction of the Act. Cites Bissonnette (A-425-85), Champagne (A-526-85) and Boileau (A-692-94).

Decision 34882 Full Text of Decision 34882

The Commission would be abusing his discretionary power if, after stating to a claimant that he is eligible for a training course and allowing him to follow the said course, it subsequently realized its mistake and demanded that the benefits received be repaid. Case on appeal before the FCA.**NOTE: It was decided to appeal at the FCA. The Commission's policy remains the same, no matter who is at fault, benefits paid in error must be reimbursed. The jurisprudence has always been constant to this effect.

Decision 26083 Full Text of Decision 26083

The only course of action for an individual who has suffered monetary damages and emotional stress by relying on gross misinformation from the Commmission is to write a claim letter to the Minister of Human Resources. The next step would be to bring an action for damages in the appropriate court.

Decision 22886 Full Text of Decision 22886

Where there is clear prejudice resulting from wrong information given by the CEIC to a claimant, there is inherent unfairness in the CEIC being able to avoid the liability that any private litigant would incur simply because its obligations arise under statutory and regulatory provisions. In circumstances such as these, where there is no doubt that the representation was made and was relied upon, a responsible course of action by the Commission would be to consider making an ex gracia payment to claimant to compensate for the loss. Notwithstanding this, I am bound by the law.

Decision T-3006.91 Full Text of Decision T-3006.91

Based on past experience, claimant assumed that she would be paid 15 weeks of maternity benefit. There was no duty on the CEIC in this case to specifically warn her that she had not qualified to receive the maximum 15 weeks. I do not consider the CEIC's conduct in this matter to be at all negligent. Action in tort to recover damages from the CEIC. Five general requirements enumerated for action to succeed. This claimant was the author of her own misfortune. She received accurate information which she misapplied to her particular situation.

Decision 18114 Full Text of Decision 18114

As to the claim for damages as set-off against the overpayment, neither a Board nor an Umpire has jurisdiction to award such a remedy. If she has a valid claim for damages she may, of course, commence an action for recovery against Her Majesty.

Decision 17884 Full Text of Decision 17884

GRANGER quoted. Equity has no place in the face of the clear and peremptory provisions of the law. If the claimant has been aggrieved his remedy is to be had in the Federal Court and not on an appeal to the Umpire.

Decision 13237 Full Text of Decision 13237

If the claimant did receive the bad advice on the part of the Commission's staff, she ought fairly to be compensated for any loss of inconvenience, but this is not the forum for that. Context: no interruption of earnings by reason of monies received upon separation from work.

Decision 12626 Full Text of Decision 12626

The jurisprudence is clear that wrong advice given by an employee of the Commission cannot justify the Umpire in failing to apply the law. The claimant's remedy would be to institute an action for damages in the Courts of the land.

Decision S-0392.78

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]

Decision A-0392.78 Full Text of Decision A-0392.78

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]