| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The second error is that the alleged new facts are not facts which could have constituted "good cause for delay". As was recently stated by this Court in LAROUCHE, good faith and ignorance of the law are not by themselves a valid excuse for not having complied with legal provisions.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Summary:
The second error is that the alleged new facts are not facts which could have constituted "good cause for delay". As was recently stated by this Court in LAROUCHE, good faith and ignorance of the law are not by themselves a valid excuse for not having complied with legal provisions.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
A different version of facts already known to claimant, mere afterthoughts or the sudden realization of the consequences of acts done in the past are not new facts.
New facts, for reconsideration by an Umpire under s. 86, are facts that either happened after the decision was rendered or prior to the decision but that could not have been discovered by a claimant acting diligently. In both cases the facts alleged must have been decisive of the issue.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
Reconsideration by an Umpire on the basis of new facts should remain a rare commodity. UI claimants are given an exceptionally large number of opportunities to challenge UI decisions and Umpires should be careful not to let the reconsideration process be abused by careless or ill-advised claimants.
