Summary of Issue: Authority To Recover

Decision A-0273.04 Full Text of Decision A-0273.04

The Federal Court of Appeal upholds the Federal Court judge's determination that the Board of Referees, by quashing the Commission's decision to impose a penalty and by finding the case time-barred, also set aside the overpayment. This judgment is based on the fact that, in its decision, the Commission stated that the claimant should repay any amount to which he was not entitled, in addition to the amount of the penalty.

Decision A-0294.01 Full Text of Decision A-0294.01

Umpire determined that the claimant was entitled to retain the overpayment on the basis that it arose by reason of inaccurate information provided by the Commission. Relying on the decision in Granger (S-0684.85), the Court stated that it was not open to the Umpire to refrain from applying the Act and waive the payment of amounts properly owing thereunder.

Decision T-0851.00 Full Text of Decision T-0851.00

In view of the exceptional nature of the write-off, the expert opinion on this matter of the collection officers, and the absence of any right of appeal, the standard of judicial review is a very high one of patent unreasonableness. The evidence on the record does not support the claimant's contention that is unable to repay the overpayment even in part without imposing an undue hardship on himself.

Decision 51187 Full Text of Decision 51187

See summary indexed under FCA A-0294.01

Decision T-2986.92 Full Text of Decision T-2986.92

Claimant argues that following his acquittal of the charge, the Commission should correct its finding that the claimant had made false statements. The result would be that the Commission would have a period of only 3 years, instead of 6, to render its decision. This argument was dismissed by the Court. In the first place, the Commission's notice was delivered in the period before the acquittal. Secondly, the acquittal did not occur after a debate on the merits, but for technical reasons. Moreover, the civil case must not be bound by the criminal case.

Decision A-0006.97 Full Text of Decision A-0006.97

Referring to Cornish-Hardy (A-647-78) and Opigez (A-370-94), the FCA stated that it also seemed clear that the Umpire, who had just declared the Commission's decision wrongful, was not using the term "write-off" in its strict sense of "deduction" or "remittance". It was to be noted that the actual write-off of a repayment debt following an overpayment was not within the Umpire's jurisdiction.

Decision A-0984.96 Full Text of Decision A-0984.96

Umpire found that action for the recover of amounts incorrectly paid, which must be taken according to the strict standards for exceptions stipulated in s. 35 and s. 43 of the Act, was not taken, given the failure to prove that the claimant received the essential notification of the amount of overpayment that she was to repay. FCA cancelled this decision and upheld the principles set out in Brien and Rajotte (A-0425.96, A-0426.96). The case was therefore sent back to another Umpire for a decision, taking for granted that Commission’s decision was consistent with the requirements of s. 43 of the Act.

Decision 29505 Full Text of Decision 29505

Claimant guilty of defrauding the Commission. Invoking the bankruptcy, claimant alleged to be relieved from reimbursing the overpayment claimed by the Commission. Claimant found liable for repayment of money received through misrepresentation notwithstanding discharge of bankruptcy.

Decision 13695 Full Text of Decision 13695

Retroactive disqualification. The Commission ought to so arrange its affairs so as not to press collection proceedings when an appeal to the Umpire is under way.

Decision T-1095.86 Full Text of Decision T-1095.86

Claimant was awarded salary for a past period and the employer remitted the amount due to CEIC under s. 38. The Board recommended that the Commission make arrangements with claimant to avoid undue hardship. It is unlikely that the Board could order return of overpayment by installments.

Decision A-0413.77 Full Text of Decision A-0413.77

Claimant does not dispute the basis for the retroactive decision but disputes the liability to repay the overpayment. The Umpire declined jurisdiction. We are of the view that, as submitted by the claimant, the Umpire was wrong due to s.43 but application dismissed on another ground.