| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Summary:
In a case such as this, where the officer in question can be readily identified, it is not sufficient for the CEIC to support its case with the kind of third hand information that was put before the Board in this case on a critical point as to whether claimant had been misled.
It has been held that incorrect advice from a CEIC agent may well provide good cause if it was reasonable for claimant to believe the CEIC officer. Very important therefore that Boards pay very close attention to the nature of proof submitted concerningstatements by officers.
