Decision T-1765.89
Full Text of Decision T-1765.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Argument raised by claimant: change in case law. The Commission was justified in not accepting that ground as sufficient to reconsider the claim under s. 43.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
Decision 16684
Full Text of Decision 16684
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Appeal filed 4 months after the decision period. Argues that section 43 allows the reopening of an investigation when a new fact arises. Reasons for delay were not provided. Given the lack of explanation or supporting documents, extension of the time period was not granted.
Decision T-0472.88
Full Text of Decision T-0472.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
change in jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Quebec construction worker whose vacation pay was deducted from benefits as per DAIGLE who requests reconsideration of his claim under 43(1). Request denied even if the judgment in DAIGLE was overturned in GIROUX.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
