Decision 55063
Full Text of Decision 55063
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Claimant's appeal filed more than three months after the notice of disentitlement had been sent. Claimant admitted that she had not filed an appeal earlier because of her own preoccupations and because she had forgotten to do so. Appeal dismissed. Decisions of the FCA in Chartier (T-0370.95), Dyson (A-0016.94) and Martin (A-1001.92) cited. The Umpire refused to intervene because the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0194.98
Full Text of Decision A-0194.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Decision suspending benefits issued in 1989 but claimant did not appeal before April 1996, which was one year later after he inquired about the status of his o/p. Both the Commission and the BOR refused to extend the appeal delay. Umpire allowed the appeal ruling that the Commission had failed to advise the claimant of his right to appeal when it wrote to the claimant in May 1995 after his inquiry about the o/p. Umpire's decision quashed by the FCA: no evidence that the Commission or the BOR failed to exercise its discretion judicially and Umpire erred when he considered the notice of o/p issued in May 1995 to be a decision of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 41239
Full Text of Decision 41239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Umpire ruled that when claimant's counsel files an appeal, but for administrative reasons the Notice of appeal is either not delivered by a third party - in this case Canada Post- or reaches and is lost at the Commission's premises which is another possibility not discounted in this case, that the law cannot be so vigorously enforced as to deny a person the right to claim special reasons under the Act. Such reasons are not in the control of the claimant or even the Commission and should not adversly affect the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Decision 40484
Full Text of Decision 40484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0194.98.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 38632
Full Text of Decision 38632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Umpire concluded that "being busy" is not good cause for failing to file an appeal within the legal delays. ** The fact that a claimant must repay a "sizable amount" is not good cause for failling to file an appeal within the delays stipulated by the Act.
Decision A-0432.96
Full Text of Decision A-0432.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
While it recognized that the Commission had a discretion in the matter (extension of the time to appeal), the FCA drew the Commission's attention to factors such as the seriousness of a determination that false or misleading statements had been made, the amount of penalty imposed and the fact that there was a delay of only one month after the time limit for the appeal. The FCA viewed all these as "special reasons" to be taken into account by the Commission in exercising its discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay not substantial |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
| claim procedure |
good cause |
negligence |
|
Decision 37300
Full Text of Decision 37300
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Claimant did not appeal until two years after admiting receiving decisions. Excuse is that his mind was so affected by his alcoholism that he did not even think of appealing until he allegedly was recovering from it after taking a program. While one can sympathize with claimant, the delay is far too long to be excused.
Decision 36662
Full Text of Decision 36662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Notice of disentitlement sent on 15-07-94 and appeal filed on 09-03-95. Extension of appeal time limit refused by the Commission. Refusal appealed to the Board of Referees. Claimant's explanations accepted by the Board. It was found that the Board had not considered whether the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner. It had in fact substituted its discretion for that of the Commission. Board exceeded jurisdiction and erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0600.95
Full Text of Decision A-0600.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Late appeal (4 months). In the absence of an explanation as to how the Commission had not exercised its discretion in a judicial manner under subsection 79(1) of the Act, the Board of Referees could not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission. The Umpire therefore erred in not concluding that the Board of Referees had been wrong to substitute its discretion for that of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A-1001.92
Full Text of Decision A-1001.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
It is well settled that if the discretion has been exercised, bona fide, uninfluenced by irrelevant considerations and not arbitrarily or illegally, no court is entitled to interfere even if the Court, had the discretion been theirs, might have exercised it otherwise.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
grievance pending |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 21226
Full Text of Decision 21226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Refer to: A-1001.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
grievance pending |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0346.93
Full Text of Decision A-0346.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
That discretion (special reasons in ss.79(1)) is to be exercised judicially and the refusal of an extension is, by virtue of s.88, subject of an appeal to a Board of Referees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 22558
Full Text of Decision 22558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0346.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 23241
Full Text of Decision 23241
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Board accepted as a fact that claimant never received the notice possibly because of disruptions in postal service. It is clear that the CEIC failed to take this very relevant fact into consideration. Having made this finding, it was open to the Board to exercise its discretion and grant relief.
Decision 22317
Full Text of Decision 22317
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
CHARTIER and PLOURDE quoted. The Court did not feel constrained to further elaborate on what might be considered relevant or irrelevant considerations. Case law examined with respect to the meaning of those words.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Decision A-0080.90
Full Text of Decision A-0080.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
It is to the CEIC that Parliament provided the discretionary power. Refusal to exercise its discretion may be appealed to a Board. The Board can intervene only if discretion is exercised in a non-judicial manner, i.e. if irrelevant considerations are relied upon.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Decision 17776
Full Text of Decision 17776
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0080.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Decision A-0042.90
Full Text of Decision A-0042.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Board could not intervene unless it believed that the Commission had not exercised its discretion judicially, had considered irrelevant matters or had failed to consider relevant matters.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 17581
Full Text of Decision 17581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0042.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0620.88
Full Text of Decision A-0620.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The decision attacked (CEIC refusal to extend the appeal period), being accessory to a quasi-judicial proceeding, is itself subject to a quasi-judicial process. The CEIC request to dismiss the application for review made by claimant is dismissed.
Decision A-0649.86
Full Text of Decision A-0649.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
In his appeal claimant raised the s. 36 disentitlement. The CEIC advised him it was too late. He applied for an extension of time. It was refused by letter 27-8. Was the matter subject of appeal to the Board, the Umpire and this Court? It was not. The letter of 27-8 was.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
Decision 12837
Full Text of Decision 12837
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0649.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
qualifying period |
extension |
maximum under 104 w. |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
extension |
workers' compensation |
