Summary of Issue: Change In Jurisprudence

Decision 38136 Full Text of Decision 38136

Appeal period over ten months. Issuance of new case law, after expiry of the time for appeal, which changes the interpretation of the statutory law is not a special reason for extending the appeal time limit.

Decision 19951 Full Text of Decision 19951

Refer to: A-0692.91

Decision A-0692.91 Full Text of Decision A-0692.91

Claimant sought an extension of the appeal period in light of the new jurisprudence established by DAIGLE/GIROUX. The Umpire relied on CHARTIER and PLOURDE to dismiss the request. Finding maintained by FC without comment.

Decision A-0094.90 Full Text of Decision A-0094.90

Construction worker who wants his case to be reviewed 2 years later and have the GIROUX judgment from FC applied to him. We do not fully agree with the Umpire's reasoning. See FC judgment in PLOURDE. The Umpire's conclusion is nevertheless the only correct one.

Decision 17776 Full Text of Decision 17776

Refer to: A-0080.90

Decision 17741 Full Text of Decision 17741

Refer to: A-0094.90

Decision A-0080.90 Full Text of Decision A-0080.90

Construction worker who seeks the application of GIROUX. Contacted CEIC on several occasions for information. Informed that matter had already been settled by DAIGLE. Explanations accepted by Board. Acted in a reasonable manner. Umpire's decision quashed by FC. The only ground invoked here for an extension of the appeal period is the new jurisprudential interpretation provided in GIROUX. This cannot constitute a special reason justifying a delay in appealing under s. 79.

Decision 17581 Full Text of Decision 17581

Refer to: A-0042.90

Decision A-0042.90 Full Text of Decision A-0042.90

The Board held that a jurisprudential change constituted special reasons to extend the appeal period. The Board was not allowed to substitute its discretion for that of the Commission. The Umpire was correct in intervening.

Decision 17502 Full Text of Decision 17502

It will generally follow that the longer the delay in filing the appeal the heavier will be the burden on the appellant. The fact that later jurisprudence might have given rise to a different decision is not a special reason for extending the delay from2 to 32 months.

Decision 17140 Full Text of Decision 17140

Appeals with an 8-month delay following a favorable judgment in GIROUX. See BLACKWELL in the Court of Appeal of Ontario: "The fact that in a subsequent case a higher Court took a different view of the law has never been deemed sufficient for granting an extension of time".

Decision A-1398.84 Full Text of Decision A-1398.84

The circumstances are so special as to warrant an extension, especially where refusal would deny the benefit of the Supreme Court reasoning to these claimants when it has been retroactively applied [5 years] to so many by agreement at INCO, said the Umpire. Did not err in exercising his discretion.

Decision 10837 Full Text of Decision 10837

1 1/2 year delay; disentitled for misconduct; fellow workers were successful after exercising right of appeal. No good cause for delay since colleagues suffered same fate and took trouble to appeal their cases.