Summary of Issue: Hardship Defined

Decision T-0851.00 Full Text of Decision T-0851.00

According to the claimant, the fact that Parliament chose to change the French term "privation injustifiable" to "préjudice abusif" clearly indicates that it wanted to alleviate the implications of that subparagraph. He submits therefore that a debtor need not prove that he will be led to undergo serious privations in order to be able to benefit from the write-off of a sum that is owing. The Commission, for its part, argues that the change was intended only to reformulate the law and not to reform it. The Court ruled that the new language was no different in substance from the previous text, since the words "undue hardship" used in the English version had remained the same since 1971.

Decision 23378 Full Text of Decision 23378

The Commission's internal policy is that the write-off of an overpayment is allowed only when financial hardship is of a permanent nature. This position is clearly incorrect. The regulation contains no such limitation. It is a fettering of discretion for the Commission to make its decision in such a way.

Decision 12523 Full Text of Decision 12523

Where an error created by the Commission results in overpayment, then that creates undue hardship. Not just in the sense that it cannot be paid back, but in the planning of one's life, personal and financial affairs.

Decision 12440 Full Text of Decision 12440

Hardship does not stop at financial hardship. Brought about here by an unfortunate combination of circumstances: advice by Commission, length of time taken to investigate and make ruling. Expression to be used in the widest sense. Strongly recommends write-off.

Decision 12443 Full Text of Decision 12443

Undue hardship does not just mean financial hardship. It is undue hardship at any time when people, through no fault of their own, and in this case over the claimant's warnings, are paid money to which not entitled.