| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The Board found that the claimant's failure to claim benefits immediately upon her eligibility was the result of her ignorance of the law. If, as the claimant said she did not claim the benefits while she was a sponsor student because she was afraid that it could be seen as an abuse (as she was receiving assistance throuth a First Nation Education Authority), she then had at the time even more reasons for inquiring about her status, rights and obligations under the Act. A reasonable person would have so enquired. The Court relied on its recent decisions in A-481-07(Brace) and A-341-04 (Beaudin).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
Unavailability of Transcript |
|
Summary:
The Umpire could not use the unavailability of the transcript as a ground for setting aside the Board's decision unless it could be shown that the absence of the tape or transcript effectively denied the claimant her right of appeal before the Umpire. There is no such prejudice in this case as the claimant made the same argument before the Umpire. The Court referred to its prior decision in Valladolid (A-283-03).
