Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Summary:
Claimant was the only one employed as janitor; his wife was not. It was his own decision to separate both his work and his salary with her. The decision reached by the Board was the correct one; the claimant should have declared his entire income.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear that wrong advice given by an employee of the Commission cannot justify the Umpire in failing to apply the law. The claimant's remedy would be to institute an action for damages in the Courts of the land.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
Misinformation given to claimant and corrected nearly a year later. The Commission, under ss.43(1), has up to 36 months to reconsider its decision. Claimant employed as janitor separating work and earnings with wife.