Decision A0353.09
Full Text of Decision A0353.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
This was a representative appeal affecting workers of a mine of which the owners were placed under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. On October 29, 2004, an arrangement plan was proposed by the monitor pursuant to the CCAA and a court of justice approved it on December 20, 2004. On June 7, 2008, the Commission informed the claimants that a payment of $1000 which was soon to be paid to them by the monitor, constituted earnings which had to be allocated. Appealing the Commission's decision, the claimants argued that: (1) the allocation of the earnings could not be done beyond the 36 month period provided for under s. 52 of the EIA; (2) the allocation had not been commenced as of the proper date; and (3) the amount paid ($1000) did not constitute earnings as it was a reimbursement for medical and insurance fees. Fisrt, the FCA concluded that the limitation period of s. 52 of the EIA does not apply to s. 46 of the EIA as a limitation period is expressly provided for under s. 47 of the EIA for debts under s. 46. In support of its conclusion, the FCA indicated that the objectives of sections 46 and 52 of the EIA are greatly different and that these sections were enacted to deal with distinct factual and legal situations. Secondly, the FCA concluded that the validity of the notice issued under s. 46 is not affected by the inaccuracy of the allocation period identified in it. Lastly, the FCA concluded that the amount of $1000 constitutes earnings pursuant to the EIR as it was paid as either severance pay, compensation in lieu of notice or loss or reduction in benefits. Similar cases: A0354.06 and A0355.09.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision A-0753.00
Full Text of Decision A-0753.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
Several claims made between 1990 and 1992 were cancelled as the employment during those periods was ruled not insurable by RCT. Notice of overpayment was sent to claimant in January 1995 but claimant claimed that the Commission's letter of recovery received in 1999 was the first notice he received of the overpayment. The Commission was able to present evidence that the claimant acknowledged receipt of the notice in January 1995, which was accepted at trial. The Court found no palpable or overriding errors of fact made by the trial judge. Appeal dismissed.
Decision A-0546.00
Full Text of Decision A-0546.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
Commission argued that if a certificate is registered in the Federal Court (FC), it is the limitation periods applicable to collection procedures under the FC rules that should apply and that SS.35(4) of the EIA cannot be read to make the FC limitations inapplicable. Held by the Court that the terms of SS.35(4) are unrestricted and that the Commission cannot recover after 72 months, even if the Commission has filed for registration of a certificate in the FC. **NOTE: The Commission has decided not to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Therefore, all accounts older than six years are irrecoverable.
Decision T-0785.99
Full Text of Decision T-0785.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0753.00
Decision T-1227.99
Full Text of Decision T-1227.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
On 27-01-93, claimant was notified of an O/P. However, it is only on 15-12-98 that the Commission filed a certificate of judgment from the Federal Court (Trial Division). On 15-03-99, the claimant was advised that his income tax refund for the tax year 1998 had been applied against his debt. On 4-07-99, claimant filed a statement of claim alleging that the Commission was precluded from further collecting any sums owing due to the 6 year limitation period prescribed under the legislation (in this case, the prescribed period ended 26-01-99).**The Court held that the Commission must collect and/or obtain judgment, and restoration through such judgment within the prescribed period. The purpose of the certificate and the judgment is to open the door for the Commission to reach for very efficient and drastic proceedings of recovery. It has 72 months to do so. After 72 months, the door is closed. **NOTE: The Commission filed an application to the Federal Court of Appeal but no decision has been rendered yet.
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 |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
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 |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 22393A
Full Text of Decision 22393A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
CEIC must collect the overpayment within 72 months of the date at which it has notified the claimant of its decision. Thus it can have up to 12 years to collect overpayment in cases of fraud and 9 in other cases, plus the time passed during appeal or other recourse.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 21128
Full Text of Decision 21128
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
A condition of permitting this adjournment will require that claimant sign a waiver indicating that if this matter is not heard before the time when the CEIC may collect the overpayment, he will waive any UI provision thereby permitting the Crown to collect any overpayment owing.
Decision 18793
Full Text of Decision 18793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
In dispute: time period of 36 or 72 months to recover overpayment. The Board found that the insured person had deliberately made false statements. CEIC had warned the insured person on this matter even though it decided not to impose a penalty on him.
Decision 18199
Full Text of Decision 18199
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
In this case, the liability for repayment was created on 30-3-87, date of the notice of overpayment. A few weeks prior to the hearing before the umpire, the required time period expired, thus making it impossible for the Commission to recover the overpayment.
Decision 18111
Full Text of Decision 18111
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
In the normal course the Commission would be precluded from requiring recovery of the overpayment, of which notice was given in 10-86, because of the passage of time. Nevertheless, claimant has conceded this matter when heard in 3-89. This may provide abasis for recovery.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
preparatory activities in commencing business |
|
|
Decision 18081
Full Text of Decision 18081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
The passage of time has effectively resolved the question of overpayment in this case. The Notice of Overpayment is dated 24-3-87. There being no fault attributable to claimant, recovery of the amount as a debt is statute barred as more than 36 months have elapsed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 17250
Full Text of Decision 17250
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
The decision of the Board goes back 4 years. Fortunately for the insured person, recovery of debts is limited to a
36-month period. As this time period has elapsed, he does not have to repay anything.
Decision 17045
Full Text of Decision 17045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
The Commission cannot invoke the 72-month period referred to in ss.35(4) as it has not established that claimant knowingly made false statements, given my finding on this issue. Refer to MARTEL (T-2416-87).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
business |
|
|
Decision 13447A
Full Text of Decision 13447A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
At the outset of this hearing I raised the question of mootness. The liability would have arisen on 28-1-86. More than 3 years having elapsed since, it would appear the Crown cannot now recover that overpayment. Counsel for the Commission agreed.
Decision T-2416.87
Full Text of Decision T-2416.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
Employment ruled non-insurable and overpayment established. S. 43 not resorted to. Appeal by claimant to Tax Court dismissed. Commission's failure to make use of ss. 33(1) is a bar to collection of overpayment after 36 months. It may however reconsider the claim under s. 43.
Decision 15932A
Full Text of Decision 15932A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
I cannot be oblivious to the fact there is a substantial overpayment. Collection action cannot be taken as long as appeal outstanding and amount not recoverable after 36 months. One may see advantages in delaying matters. Appeal deemed abandoned: claimant's new address not given.
Decision 13011B
Full Text of Decision 13011B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
Notice of overpayment sent to claimant 24-7-84. Matter heard by Umpire in 1988. The appeal could also have been dismissed on the ground that it has become moot, i.e. the decision could make no difference with respect to future recovery because the period of 3 years under ss._35(4) is expired.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
group plan |
|
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 |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
Fraudulent claims. The CEIC lost its right of action by its failure to abide by delays prescribed in UI Act. We do not have to decide whether the CEIC still retains a remedy before the ordinary courts at common law. We will leave it to competent courts to decide.
Fraudulent claims and recovery period expired. There seems to be no question that the claimant owes a debt to the CEIC and that, under common law, this obligation remains in force since, in principle, no prescription is made against the Queen. [Marceau, J.]
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 |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision T-0713.87
Full Text of Decision T-0713.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
No penalty was imposed under ss. 33(1), and the 36 months mentioned in ss. 33(3) have now expired [court action taken aborted]. To extend to 72 months, it does not suffice for the Commission to say that in its opinion the claimant committed an offence.
Though the exercise of this remedy [withholdings pursuant to ss. 35(4)] began less than 36 months after 3-3-83, ss. 35(4) bars any continuance or resumption after those 36 months have expired unless an offence has been committed under s. 33.
If the Commission's recourse under ss. 35(4) has expired [36-month period], it is wrong in arguing that ss. 35(3) may be used to withhold the benefit payable pursuant to s. 6 and 8.
Decision 12922
Full Text of Decision 12922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
Limitation of 36 months as contained in ss.35(4) referred to. It is therefore to claimant's advantage to delay the hearing of his appeal. And this cannot be allowed.
Decision 11410
Full Text of Decision 11410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
As the notice of the overpayment was given on 20-10-83, it appears that the limitation period of 3 years under 35(4) would preclude recovery even if the appeal were resolved in favour of the Commission if appeal not disposed of before 20-10-86. Adjournment not granted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
retroactive disqualification |
|
Decision 22827A
Full Text of Decision 22827A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
waive |
Summary:
The insured was prepared to waive the legal requirement so that the dispute can be heard. I doubt that this commitment could be construed as likely to have any legal follow-up. Legislation cannot be amended by an umpire to extend a default. Such action would be outside my jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
