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 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-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 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 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 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 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-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 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 |
Decision 38136
Full Text of Decision 38136
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision A-0692.91
Full Text of Decision A-0692.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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 19951
Full Text of Decision 19951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0692.91
Decision 17741
Full Text of Decision 17741
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0094.90
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 |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0094.90
Full Text of Decision A-0094.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
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 |
appealable |
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 |
change in jurisprudence |
|
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
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 |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 17502
Full Text of Decision 17502
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
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.
Decision 37734
Full Text of Decision 37734
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence has established that collections proceedings initiated by the Commission do not constitute special reasons to accept an appeal beyond the time period.
Decision 35979
Full Text of Decision 35979
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing his appeal for 3½ years alleging his confusion with respect to the amount of O/P and penalty due. Explanations provided do not satisfy that claimant has shown special reasons. Collection proceedings do not constitute "special reasons" within the meaning of section 82 (Act).
Decision 23773
Full Text of Decision 23773
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
Appeal filed 6 months after Board's decision. When claimant was made aware of the fact that the Commission was going to pursue repayment of the funds, he made known his desire to appeal the decision of the Board. Given this explanation, I found sufficient reasons to extend the appeal period.
Decision 22317
Full Text of Decision 22317
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
Claimant contends that it is highly unfair to saddle her with an oppressive overpayment which would never have happened but for the CEIC's mistake. The CEIC did not regard this as a sufficiently compelling reason. The possibility that I might have come to a different decision is totally irrelevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 20768
Full Text of Decision 20768
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
It seems clear that it was claimant's intention to abandon his appeal and only when collection proceedings were imminent was any action taken by him to have the matter heard by an Umpire. Collection proceedings do not constitute "special circumstances" as contemplated by s.82.
Decision 14710
Full Text of Decision 14710
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
Appeal filed 10 months after Board's decision communicated to claimant. Under s.98, appeal must be filed within 60 days. Appeal delayed because repayment unit contacted him more recently and appeal suggested. Without more, this is not a special reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
negligence |
|
|
Decision 14388
Full Text of Decision 14388
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
Claimant did not realize until enforcement action taken he would have to repay an overpayment to the Commission. Not a special reason for extending the time for appeal by more than 1 year.
Decision 11066
Full Text of Decision 11066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
collection of overpayment |
|
Summary:
An appeal can be launched by mail; being out of town as truck driver much of the time is no excuse for a delay over 6 months. Also, he had essentially abandoned his appeal rights until faced with collection proceedings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
calculation of time for appeal |
|
Decision A-1463.92
Full Text of Decision A-1463.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
Summary:
We would comment that, in cases such as CUB 21932, where a party without benefit of counsel effectively wants to cross-appeal in the course of an appeal by the CEIC, it would be appropriate for Umpires to utilize their power under s. 82 to extend the time for filing an appeal to make that possible.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 21822
Full Text of Decision 21822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
cross-appeal |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1463.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 46455
Full Text of Decision 46455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
| claim procedure |
address of normal place of residence |
change |
|
Decision A-0438.95
Full Text of Decision A-0438.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
Summary:
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.
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 23072
Full Text of Decision 23072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
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: |
| claim procedure |
documents sent by mail |
presumption |
|
Decision A0340.07
Full Text of Decision A0340.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
On August 24, 2006, the claimant, an offshore oil rig worker, submitted a letter of appeal contesting a period of disentitlement. The Commission denied the request for an appeal as the claimant had missed the 30 day deadline and had not shown special reasons for the delay. The BOR held that the dismissal of the claimant's two previous appeals and the delivery of a new decision involving an employment situation similar to that of the claimant did not constitute special reasons. The BOR determined that the Commission's decision not to accept the claimant's appeal was judicially exercised. The Umpire ruled that the BOR did not err in dismissing the appeal and that the BOR exercised its discretion judicially. The FCA concluded that the Umpire had made no errors warranting its intervention.
Decision 65357
Full Text of Decision 65357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
It is trite law to suggest the test of special reasons is relatively strict. When established language problems arise, it usually gives rise to considerable probing by the presiding Umpire. On the other hand, as was said by an Umpire in CUB 56437: "... if there was a language problem, the onus was on the claimant to seek assistance in a reasonable and timely manner in order to protect her rights of appeal under the legislation". This was not done in this case and the Umpire confirmed the Board's ruling.
Decision 41445
Full Text of Decision 41445
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
His reason for filing a late appeal is that he had undergone surgery and treatments for cancer. Umpire found that the claimant's explanation constituted a special reason warranting an extension of the appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 36906
Full Text of Decision 36906
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Delay of 112 days while await any results of Employment Standards complaint. Claimant did not show he had special reasons justifying the delay for filing his appeal. The onus was on him to promptly enquire with the Commission concerning his rights and obligations with respect to appeal procedures.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 36724
Full Text of Decision 36724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Appeal filed 8 months after BOR's decision. Stated that he didn't know that his appeal had to be filed within 60 days. He also submitted that new facts had come to light. Jurisprudence in all fields has maintained that subsequent revelation doesn't constitute grounds to reopen proceedings or extend time for filing late appeals.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 36677
Full Text of Decision 36677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Notice of refusal sent on 12-01-95. Claimant requested an extension of his time to appeal because he was going out of the country and not returning before April. Claimant contacted the Commission only on 01-07-95. The fact that the claimant had "other pressing matters" including paying bills and other personal matters to do is considered mere excuses rather than special reasons.
Decision 36134
Full Text of Decision 36134
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Delay of 6 months to file her appeal. Explained that she had temporarily left the area for personal reasons shortly after receiving the BOR's decision. Held that no special reasons shown. Jurisprudence has established that being out of town is not an acceptable reason for delay since an appeal can be launched by mail.
Jurisprudence provides that delays have been allowed for compassionate reasons or for reasons beyond the claimant's control. Ignorance of the appeal process, forgetfulness or simple negligence do not constitute "special reasons".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 35695
Full Text of Decision 35695
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Appeal delayed: waiting for the result of an appeal on similar grounds launched in B.C. The union representative submits that the recent result of that appeal should now govern the claimant's case. Rejected by Umpire: not appropriate to apply this judgement to a decision made almost 3 years ago.
Decision 34724
Full Text of Decision 34724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Claimant did not read the two folders issued by the Commission concerning the time limit for appeals. A member of his family reportedly mentioned to him, ten months later, that he had the right to appeal. No special circumstance which could justify the delay.
Decision 25222A
Full Text of Decision 25222A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0245.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision A-0245.95
Full Text of Decision A-0245.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Four-year delay in appeal. Referring to the Federal Court of Appeal's decisions in Albrecht (A-172-85), Chartier (A-42-90) and Plourde (A-80-90), the referee was not convinced that the claimant acted as a reasonable person. FCA refused to intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 32545
Full Text of Decision 32545
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Notice of appeal received 15 months later. On 2-2-93, the beneficiary was informed that he was late in filing an appeal, and he did not produce a sworn statement until February 1995. The beneficiary did not give any special reasons that would justify extending the deadline for filing an appeal.
Decision 23793
Full Text of Decision 23793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
His letter of appeal was finally dated on 4-12 (68 days after the Commission's decision), his reasons for the delay being that he was very busy in his studies and did not have time to think of this matter. This is clearly not a legally acceptable excuse.
Decision 23393
Full Text of Decision 23393
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Appeal to Umpire filed beyond the statutorily prescribed period in para. 82(a) of the Act. Despite the failure of the appellant to justify the delay, I have concluded in the exercise of my discretion that, in view of the meritorious nature of her appeal, an extension of time ought to be granted.
Decision 22260
Full Text of Decision 22260
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Where the claimant is unaware of the right to appeal, an extension of the appeal period would be justified if the claimant exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing the appeal once he became aware of his right: CUBs 17904 and 19020.
Decision 19761
Full Text of Decision 19761
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Delay of 8 months. Did not realize until expiration of his benefit period that the disqualification for leaving his job would result in a real loss of benefits. Appeal dismissed by Board. No basis for considering that the Board's decision was perverse or capricious.
Decision 17376A
Full Text of Decision 17376A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
I agree that the test is not to show just cause for delay but only to show special reasons. This is a relatively minor error on the part of the Board. Use of the wrong term is not sufficient to set aside the overall finding. Just cause not used as a term of art by Board.
Decision 18682
Full Text of Decision 18682
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Claimant thought that the waiting period and the 2-week disqualification ran concurrently. There is no evidence in the file to suggest that the mistake proceeded from any cause other than his own mistaken assumption. This is not a "special reason".
Decision 18609
Full Text of Decision 18609
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Commission's decision overturned by FC. Claimant's name not in the list of cases by reason of inadvertance. He was part of the group, although he might not necessarily have been aware of it at the time. The fact he was running through parallel proceedings is not material.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| board of referees |
appeal system |
test cases |
|
Decision 18417
Full Text of Decision 18417
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Umpires often simply grant or refuse requests for extended time without giving reasons. In this instance I based my decision to allow the appeal primarily on the fact that there was a "reasonable ground of appeal with some possibility of success and it is not merely frivolous".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 17895
Full Text of Decision 17895
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Not understanding the "system" or not understanding the meaning of the Notice of Disqualification is not a special reason for failing to file an appeal within the delays stipulated in the Act. He should have attended the office to obtain an explanation.
Decision 17132
Full Text of Decision 17132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
After receiving the decision and consulting CEIC, she decided not to appeal. The fact that she later obtained a different opinion telling her that she should have appealed does not constitute a special reason affecting the
10-month delay.
Decision 17107
Full Text of Decision 17107
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Appeal filed 1 month late; the insured person had changed jobs and forgotten that he had a time period of only 60 days. No special reasons.
Decision 16629
Full Text of Decision 16629
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Appeal filed 3 weeks after the 60-day delay; reason, in order to obtain documents confirming his job search, the insured had to wait for certain employers who were on vacation to return. These facts do not constitute special circumstances.
Decision 16241
Full Text of Decision 16241
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Appeal filed more than 5 months after Board's decision. Claimant realized she did not appeal within 60 days. The deadline passed as she was unaware of this rule and was busy trying to find work. I am satisfied that the appeal was not filed on time due to her negligence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Decision 15883
Full Text of Decision 15883
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Summary:
Claimant indicated that his reasons for delay were that he had lost all his paperwork relating to Board's decision and that he was in a state of depression as he could not find work. This is considered special reasons warranting an extension of time to appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 41239
Full Text of Decision 41239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 37132
Full Text of Decision 37132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Claimant intended to appeal from the day he received the BOR's decision.Claimant delayed filing appeal awaiting advice of his M.P.. Acted immediately upon advice. Umpire is satisfied that the claimant acted in good faith and allowed the appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 27381
Full Text of Decision 27381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
While absence of prejudice may also be a factor, I think it important to require that a claimant act in a prudent and well-intentioned manner, displaying a desire to pursue the matter. The claimant must accept the failure of his or her agent to act likewise. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay not substantial |
|
Decision 26864
Full Text of Decision 26864
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
An extension of time will be granted only when the whole of the delay period can be justified by reference to factors which are outside the control of the claimant. Blind reliance on third parties does not always provide such a justification. The appeal procedure is simple.
Decision 23902
Full Text of Decision 23902
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0064.94
Decision A-0064.94
Full Text of Decision A-0064.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Claimant had referred his case to his lawyer who overlooked the matter. The Umpire held that this was a reasonable explanation for a 3-week delay. No basis for finding that the Board exercised its discretion improperly in upholding the CEIC. No justification for Umpire to substitute his own view.
Decision A-0373.92
Full Text of Decision A-0373.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
The Umpire refused to extend the time since the reason for delay (waiting to hear concerning representations made by M.P. to Minister) was not a proper and justifiable reason. Such a decision falls within the Umpire's discretion and can only be reversed where that discretion is exercised improperly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 20793
Full Text of Decision 20793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0373.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 20574
Full Text of Decision 20574
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
It may no doubt be tempting to call upon one's member of Parliament and have him intervene to short-circuit the appeal mechanism. But this is not the role of a member and this procedure, if it does not obtain the wished-for results, does not constitute a reason justifying the delay.
Decision 20502
Full Text of Decision 20502
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Essentially, the Board found that special reasons did not comprehend the case where one delegated the responsibility for prosecuting such appeal to a lawyer who failed to act within the time limit. In view of CHARTIER and PLOURDE, I am unable to find any error in law.
Decision 19843
Full Text of Decision 19843
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Had instructed her lawyer to file an appeal but he failed to do so. The CEIC submitted that although she might thereby have an action against her counsel, her explanation did not constitute special reasons. I accept this position in the absence of an explanation from her counsel.
Decision A-0159.89
Full Text of Decision A-0159.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Delay of 2 months. Time limitations for appeals must be respected for sound administration of the Act. Appeal procedures are simple. Contacting his MP and not obtaining desired results is not a reason for extension of time. Upheld by FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Decision 16334
Full Text of Decision 16334
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0159.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Decision 13814A
Full Text of Decision 13814A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Appeal well beyond time limits. Counsel explained there had been a misunderstanding in the telephone instructions he had received. Claimant understood instructions to be for an appeal but he did not interpret them that way. As soon as he realized his mistake, he filed an appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discrimination |
|
Decision 15899
Full Text of Decision 15899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Over 9 months late; he had given his papers to the Member of Parliament, a lawyer, who was supposed to look after it. This does not constitue special circumstances authorizing me to extend the appeal deadline.
Decision 14841
Full Text of Decision 14841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Delay not long (23-4 instead of by 8-3). Claimant had written to his MP and was under the impression everything would be taken care of by that route. He did not receive a response until 10-4 and it instructed him to appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 11411
Full Text of Decision 11411
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Summary:
Claimant committed his trust in union representative who apparently went on vacation and decided no appeal should be taken but never notified claimant. Cavalier negligence of him whom he trusted. For that special reason, the period of 60 days is extended.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
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 |
delay not substantial |
|
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
| claim procedure |
good cause |
negligence |
|
Decision 27381
Full Text of Decision 27381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay not substantial |
|
Summary:
The delay, it is suggested, is not substantial. Certainly, the length of the delay is an important factor to be considered, but it would be quite inappropriate for me to accept it as the sole factor to be examined. Indeed, it is only one of several factors. The most important is the reason given.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Decision 55063
Full Text of Decision 55063
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 54827
Full Text of Decision 54827
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Two letters, one for undeclared earnings and the other for false statements, were sent to claimant on March, 1996. Claimant filed a notice of appeal on May, 2001. Appeal denied by Commission but upheld by the BOR who reviewed evidence from the claimant and substituted its discretion for that of the Commission. Error in law found by Umpire: the only issue for determination by the BOR is whether the Commission exercised its discretion judicially. The BOR erred in its failure to deal with that issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 46859
Full Text of Decision 46859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Claimant notified on June 4, 1998 that he was not entitled to benefits but did not file an appeal until March 23, 1999, that is nine months after he received the letter. The BOR concluded that the claimant had acted as a reasonable person because he had relied upon the union steward's advice. BOR erred in law in relying on the Albrecht case. The legislation authorizes the Commission to extend the time beyond the 30 day period "for special reasons". The test is not one of "good cause". The BOR has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Commission's exercise of discretion unless there is evidence that the Commission acted arbitrarily or in a non judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 36662
Full Text of Decision 36662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
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 |
appealable |
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 |
discretion of Commission |
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A-0796.95
Full Text of Decision A-0796.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Claimant's evidence was that she did not become fully aware that there was a viable right of appeal until she was advised by Jobs Ontario that she should have been receiving UI benefits. The BOR refused to allow her an extension of time to appeal but Umpire set the BOR's decision aside stating that it contained no finding of facts to support it. The Commission seeked judicial review of the Umpire's decision to the FCA but claimant simply consented to the Court's judgment.
Decision A-0448.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Umpire has taken it upon himself to simply proceed to a new evaluation of the facts and to grant the extension without first addressing the question of whether there was any indication that the Commission did not act judicially. Nothing on file to this effect. Commission's appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 22558A
Full Text of Decision 22558A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0448.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 30424
Full Text of Decision 30424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
It would be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights to interpret subsection 79(1) as allowing the Commission to control the procedure for the appeal of its decisions. Such an interpretation leads to a fundamental unfairness.
Decision 26763
Full Text of Decision 26763
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
I am not satisfied that the decision to extend or not extend the time to appeal to a Board from a decision of the Commission is anything more than an administrative decision. As such, I am further not satisfied that it carries with it many of the trappings of natural justice or procedural fairness.
Decision 26455
Full Text of Decision 26455
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
decision not received |
|
Decision 24186A
Full Text of Decision 24186A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
I would observe that ss.79(1) is indeed an unusual provision. It appears to confer on one party to a proceeding, the Commission, the power to extend or not extend the time for an opposing party to bring an appeal to the Board. This is something that appears to be fundamentally unfair.
Decision A-0016.94
Full Text of Decision A-0016.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
Held that claimant's letter was not an application to extend the time. In any event, ss. 79(1) is clear that the authority to extend the time for appeal is vested in the Commission and not in the Board or in the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
Decision 21226
Full Text of Decision 21226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
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 |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The reason given for his late appeal was before the Commission and the Board. Since the Commission had this evidence, the Umpire erred in concluding that the Commission failed to take relevant factors into account, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction. He erroneously substituted his discretion.
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 |
appealable |
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 |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Umpire found that the Board had erred in law by failing to consider whether the Commission had exercised its discretion judicially. He ordered that the Board deal with the merit of the case. By so doing the Umpire effectively granted the extension. That was a clear excess of jurisdiction.
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 |
appealable |
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 |
discretion of Commission |
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 21716
Full Text of Decision 21716
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Board clearly erred in law by substituting its discretion for that of the Commission in finding that claimant's confusion regarding the appeal procedure constituted sufficient special reason for reversing the decision of the insurance officer in rejecting the late appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
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 |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
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.
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 |
appealable |
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 |
discretion of Commission |
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 14707
Full Text of Decision 14707
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Board may only hear matters which are referred to it within the prescribed time. Only the CEIC has the discretion to allow a late appeal. Claimant must therefore apply to the CEIC for permission. Until he does so, that issue cannot be brought beforethe Board. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Decision 26841
Full Text of Decision 26841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion wrongly exercised |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0127.95
Decision A-0127.95
Full Text of Decision A-0127.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion wrongly exercised |
|
Summary:
The discretionary power conferred by s.79(1) of the Act is to be exercised by the Commission. Should it fail to do so in a judicial manner, Boards and Umpires are to do what the Board did in this case, namely to return the matter to the Commission so that it may exercise its discretion judicially.
Decision 29303
Full Text of Decision 29303
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion wrongly exercised |
|
Summary:
The Commission cannot benefit by having ignored certain facts. It is not a question of law but rather one of fact. The Board is the trier of facts. It ruled that in law, considering the facts, she had shown special reasons.
Decision 40639
Full Text of Decision 40639
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
grievance pending |
|
Summary:
An appeal was filed on 15-10-96. Umpire ruled that if claimant intended to appeal the ruling reached by the Commission on 25-10-93 rejecting her claim for benefits she should have filed her appeal at that time. There was no need for claimant to wait for the termination of the arbitration proceedings to file an appeal. A ruling by the Commisssion will not be dependant upon or be governed by an arbitration award. An arbitration award will not determine how a decision ought to be made under the UI Act. Claimant has not demonstrated special reason to account for delay.
Decision 21226
Full Text of Decision 21226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
grievance pending |
|
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 |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
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 |
grievance pending |
|
Summary:
As per the Umpire, Board's decision made without taking relevant considerations into account. Claimant was aware of his right of appeal but was not able to prove wrongful dismissal at that time. Arbitration ruling in his favour and reinstated 14 months later. The Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 18828
Full Text of Decision 18828
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
new information |
|
Summary:
I am prepared to accept that, as a general principle, new information received after the date for appeal may constitute a special reason. Of course, the nature of the new information must be assessed; it must have some relevance to the issue in dispute.
Decision 24186
Full Text of Decision 24186
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Summary:
I have been troubled by the provisions of ss. 79(1). It seems very unusual that one party to a proceeding or an appeal is given the jurisdiction to extend time. That jurisdiction seems to have been left to the Commission solely. No rationale for such an unusual feature was argued before me.
If this restrictive and one-sided interpretation of ss. 79(1) is correct, an issue of natural justice arises. It may be that Parliament intended, for a good and valid purpose, to create a one-sided provision in the legislation in respect of extensions. But if it did so, its reason is not obvious.
Decision 16334
Full Text of Decision 16334
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0159.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Decision A-0159.89
Full Text of Decision A-0159.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Summary:
Delay of 2 months. Time limitations for appeals must be respected for sound administration of the Act. Appeal procedures are simple. Contacting his MP and not obtaining desired results is not a reason for extension of time. Upheld by FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Decision 16561
Full Text of Decision 16561
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Summary:
Natural justice does not require that long-delayed appeals must be heard, or there would be no point in having provisions for time to make appeals in the Act, or for that matter in any other statute.
Decision 16241
Full Text of Decision 16241
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
rationale |
|
Summary:
I agree with CUB 16160 that Umpires have a tendency to allow an out of date appeal without special reasons because all parties are present but I do not believe this to be sufficient. Parliament included s.82 for a reason. If not enforced, the whole purpose becomes meaningless.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
