Summary of Issue: Decision Not Received

Decision 46455 Full Text of Decision 46455

Claimant notified of a penalty by a letter dated 11-07-1997. Appeal lodged in March 1998. Claimant explained the delay saying that he moved from his old address and received the mail late at his new address. The claimant admitted before the Umpire that he had not kept the Commission informed of his current address which is a requirement of SS.50(9) of EIA. Power to grant an extension to the 30 day appeal period is a discretionary power that belongs to the Commission and no evidence that the Commission exercised its discretion in a non-judicial manner.

Decision A-0438.95 Full Text of Decision A-0438.95

The FCA not being convinced that the Umpire erred in upholding the decision of the BOR simply dismissed the Commission's application for judicial review. The BOR had found that the claimant had proven "special reasons" under S.79 of the Act to allow for an extension of time to file an appeal from the decision of the Commission. In this case there was evidence that the claimant moved shortly before the notice of disqualification was communicated to him and that he gave notice of his intention to appeal within 30 days that he became aware of the decision.

Decision 25332A Full Text of Decision 25332A

The Board seems to have accepted the fact that the claimant did not receive the decision. However, s. 79 speaks of 30 days from the date on which the decision was communicated to him. Since this period had not elapsed, no question can be raised as to his alleged tardiness and reasons for it.

Decision 26455 Full Text of Decision 26455

Claimant's contention that he did not receive the notices until 1-8 and the evidence submitted in support were clearly relevant considerations which the CEIC failed to take into account. This constituted an improper exercise of its discretion. The Board did not exceed its jurisdiction.

Decision 23072 Full Text of Decision 23072

Absent any certificate under ss. 102(2). Where letters were said to have been mailed to claimant, but claimant denied having received them and there is no certificate or other proof to the contrary, then the claimant should have been given the benefit of the doubt in the matter of special reasons.