Decision A-0397.99
Full Text of Decision A-0397.99
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
documents sent by mail |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Claimant failed to attend an interview saying she had no prior knowledge of the scheduled interview and outlining difficulties she had experienced with mail deliveries. BOR concluded that since claimant had received all other mail, she had received the notice to report. Umpire ruled that in the face of the claimant's denial of receipt of the notice and in the absence of any finding of credibility adverse to the claimant, the BOR had erred in law in giving effect to the presumption of delivery by post. The Court upheld the Umpire's decision stating that the Commission produced no evidence that it had mailed the notice.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
notice of interview |
|
|
Decision 43843A
Full Text of Decision 43843A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
documents sent by mail |
presumption |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0397.99
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
notice of interview |
|
|
Decision 23072
Full Text of Decision 23072
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
documents sent by mail |
presumption |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
Decision A-0637.86
Full Text of Decision A-0637.86
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
documents sent by mail |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Distinction between the 2 versions of "is evidence" used in ss. 102(2). French version translates the legislative intent with greater precision. The presumption only operates in "the ordinary course of the mails". Not applicable if the address is not claimant's.
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 |
|
reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|