Decision 18948A
Full Text of Decision 18948A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
access to material |
|
Summary:
Appeal by CEIC. Due to change in address or other oversight, docket of appeal never received by claimant. Simple justice demands that persons directly affected be given proper notice so they can not only attend, but participate effectively. This is grounds for dismissal of the appeal.
Decision 12648
Full Text of Decision 12648
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
access to material |
|
Summary:
I was quite concerned that letters may have been removed before the claimant's counsel saw the file. It is essential, and particularly where a s.33 offence is alleged, that claimant have access to all of the material to be used.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
woodcutting |
|
|
Decision A-1026.91
Full Text of Decision A-1026.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision was rendered on 29-11-90. The UIC's notice of appeal was filed with the office of the Umpire on 20-12-90. That day was the last of the 21-day period, since the day the decision was rendered is not a day included in the calculation. Appeal brought within the 21-day time frame.
Notice of appeal filed by CEIC on the last day of the 21-day period. Held by the Umpire that the time limit had not been respected since the notice was received by claimant 14 days later. Neither par. 87(2)(b) nor s. 53 contemplates the day of receipt of the notice as a relevant consideration.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
Decision 18709A
Full Text of Decision 18709A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1026.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
group plan |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 12733
Full Text of Decision 12733
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
Summary:
Board's decision sent to claimant 28-11-84. No proof made as to when received by him. Appeal filed 17-12-85. I believe I can assume that more than 60 days have elapsed. Individuals should not be prevented from presenting an appeal on a technicality.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
coffee breaks |
|
|
Decision 12406
Full Text of Decision 12406
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
Summary:
I can assume that a decision mailed on 21-9 would have reached him well before the 60-day period preceding 13-12 [date of appeal], at least in the absence of any information to the contrary.
Decision 11066
Full Text of Decision 11066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision was sent out on 6-1. The claimant at that time was working as a long distance truck driver and did not personally receive the decision until late March even though letter delivered at home. The 60 days would have expired end of May.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Decision A-0760.86
Full Text of Decision A-0760.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
levels |
|
Summary:
The usual procedure for objecting to decisions of the Commission is, first, an appeal to the Board, then to an Umpire and then to the Federal Court of Appeal, or directly from the Board to the Federal Court of Appeal.
Decision A-1035.96
Full Text of Decision A-1035.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
moot question |
|
Summary:
FCA concluded that the second decisions fof the BOR which was the subject of the appeal to the Umpire was a nullity once the matter had been disposed of by a previous decision of the BOR which was never rescinded or set aside.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Decision 23303
Full Text of Decision 23303
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
moot question |
|
Summary:
Case law quoted. Appeal moot because any elements of concrete dispute or live controversy in relation to issues requiring resolution have disappeared, and those issues are not of sufficient public importance to warrant the exercise of any discretion to deal with purely hypothetical questions.
Decision 22526
Full Text of Decision 22526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
moot question |
|
Summary:
Claimant wants a decision in his case even though the overpayment is now statute-barred. I consider that no useful purpose would be served by stating a legal opinion in a matter which is now largely academic and hypothetical by reason that there is no arguable legal issue outstanding.
Decision 18711
Full Text of Decision 18711
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
moot question |
|
Summary:
It is not the proper business of Umpires any more than it is of courts to make declaratory pronouncements or render advisory opinions in appeals which no longer raise arguable issues entailing the resolution of the parties' rights. This appeal should have been withdrawn.
Decision A-0930.96
Full Text of Decision A-0930.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
Summary:
FCA ruled that when a notice of appeal is filed before the process defined in subsection 43(1) is completed, this notice is premature and nothing prevents the Commission from completing the process. The Commission may go so far as to complete the process by giving notice of the overpayment amount contained in its written submissions to the BOR. Consequently, in the case at bar, the appeal notice filed by the claimant was premature, as he had not yet been notified of the amount of the overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
calculation |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
Decision T-0472.88
Full Text of Decision T-0472.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
Summary:
Under ss. 43(1), the reconsideration of a situation which does not alter an earlier decision is not appealable under ss. 43(2). Only decisions that alter an earlier decision are appealable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
change in jurisprudence |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
Decision 10722
Full Text of Decision 10722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
Summary:
Claimant advised that he was not eligible for referral to course. He did not appeal the decision. Assuming without deciding that there might have been a right of appeal, the Commission is under no obligation at law to give legal advice as to this possibility. See MERCIER.
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 |
|
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
responsibility |
Decision 24683
Full Text of Decision 24683
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
responsibility |
Summary:
The first reason (advanced as special reason under s. 82) is that the claimant was not advised by the Commission or the Board of his right to appeal to an Umpire. The simple reason for this is that there is no statutory obligation for them to do so.
Decision 10722
Full Text of Decision 10722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
responsibility |
Summary:
Claimant advised that he was not eligible for referral to course. He did not appeal the decision. Assuming without deciding that there might have been a right of appeal, the Commission is under no obligation at law to give legal advice as to this possibility. See MERCIER.
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 |
|
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
Decision T-2531.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
who |
Summary:
For an employee to have a right of appeal under s.79, he must be a claimant. He can be a claimant only if he has applied for benefit which means UI benefits. Decision by Commission regarding premium rate reduction allowed to employer cannot be appealed.
Decision A-0647.78
Full Text of Decision A-0647.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
who |
Summary:
Section 79 (now section 114) of the Act confers a right of appeal on "claimant" as defined aggrieved by a decision of the Commission on a claim or reconsideration under section 43 (now section 52) of the EIA. Paragraph 44(i) (now 54(k)) was not intented to authorize and Regulation 175 (now 56) do not provide for appeals against the Commission's refusal to write-off an overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
recourse |
Decision 28736
Full Text of Decision 28736
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
shortcomings |
|
Summary:
What is more, to construct a system of appeals which holds out to individuals that they can appeal the Commission's decisions, first to the Board and then to an Umpire, when that holding out is in many, many cases an empty gesture is even more unfair.
High criticism expressed by Umpire due to so many restrictions and limitations placed on Umpires in hearing appeals relating to Commission's errors, penalties, disqualifications, Board's assessment of evidence, referrals to courses of study, self-employment assistance and labour adjustment benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| self-employment assistance |
appeals |
no right of appeal |
|
Decision 13811
Full Text of Decision 13811
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
shortcomings |
|
Summary:
It is not the function of a Board or Umpire to decide the merits of a bitter dispute between employer and employee. Appeals by employers not to be encouraged. Whether justifiable grounds for getting rid of claimant not to be used to strengthen one's position before other courts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
Decision 12752
Full Text of Decision 12752
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
shortcomings |
|
Summary:
People are often misled by Boards, officers or notices of refusal as to an Umpire's authority and appeal process. The statute does not allow the discretion which they are led to believe exists. There is a crying need for alteration in the type of information made available.
Decision 23915
Full Text of Decision 23915
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
test cases |
|
Summary:
The union provided a list of 930 former employees who could potentially be affected by the outcome of this appeal. Nothing indicates that they all have consented to have this matter being treated as one representing their interest. Furthermore, the Commission does not want to proceed on that basis.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Decision 18609
Full Text of Decision 18609
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
test cases |
|
Summary:
It is in the interests of the good and proper administration of justice for group claims to be made. Conformity in the application of the law is a valid goal to achieve. What better way than by group claims, avoiding thereby the kind of ludicrous situation facing the tribunal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Decision T-1343.77
Full Text of Decision T-1343.77
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
test cases |
|
Summary:
The practice of deciding a test case is one that is often followed. It is a useful and desirable practice. Possible only if all the parties agree, or the Board of Referees may consider it desirable to do so. The appellants cannot require it.
Decision 28800
Full Text of Decision 28800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
withdrawal and reinstatement |
|
Summary:
Once a claimant has withdrawn an appeal, it is not open to him to unilaterally "reinstate" it outside the 60-day time limit. There is no authority in the Act or Regulations providing for "reinstatement". A reinstatement is nothing more than a second and independent commencement of an appeal.
