| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The Umpire, and before him the Board of Referees, erred in their interpretation of s. 52(5) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in Pilote (A-0868.97), the false or misleading statement or representation referred to in the said section does not have to be made "knowingly", unlike that mentioned in s. 38.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
In finding that there was no notification of the overpayment, the Umpire wrongly addressed a question that had not been raised before the Board of Referees. This Court (FCA) has already held that indication of the amount of the overpayment in the written submissions made to the Board of Referees by the Commission could serve as a "notification" within the meaning of ss. 52(1) of the Act. Rouleau (A-0930.96) and Gagnon (A-0676.96) cited.
