Decision 72757
Full Text of Decision 72757
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant did not accumulate a sufficient number of hours of insurable employment to receive benefits. She accumulated 324 hours but needed 724 in order to be eligible to receive benefits. Unfortunately, because of a typographical error by the Commission, the total number of hours was incorrectly entered: 44 hours became 440 hours. The claimant received benefits because of this error and the Commission is seeking repayment. The Umpire does not support the intervention or has the authority to intervene. The Commission is not liable for errors made by its employees. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision T-0777.98
Full Text of Decision T-0777.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
Claimant informed by HRDC employees (3) that her severance pay would not affect the payment of her maternity benefits. Subsequently, the severance pay was allocated which created an overpayment of $4,572. Claimant filed a claim for the total amount of the O/P based on an alleged negligent misrepresentation made by employees of the Commission. The Court recognized that the Commission had misled the claimant but due to the claimant's lack of carrying on her own research as to the state of the law, it was of the view that the claimant should bear half of the dammages. Claimant's action was granted for an amount of $2,286.
Decision A-0815.96
Full Text of Decision A-0815.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
Citing Tjong (A-672-95), FCA upheld the principle that neither the BOR, the Umpire nor the FCA itself had the jurisdiction required to turn the debate into a deliberation on the Commission's liability resulting from a so-called abuse of discretionary power and on the assessment of the hardship allegedly suffered by a claimant compelled to repay benefits received following an error by the Commission.
Decision A-0672.95
Full Text of Decision A-0672.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
Commission approved claimant to start course prior to termination of benefit period. Course delayed by Public Service strike. She started the course after her benefit had expired and received benefits due to a computer error. Umpire held that benefit was not paid in error. FCA concluded that even if it could be said that payments were not made in error, that alone in law would not entitle the claimant to the benefits as the payments were made in contradiction of the Act. Cites Bissonnette (A-425-85), Champagne (A-526-85) and Boileau (A-692-94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
benefit period terminated before course started |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 34882
Full Text of Decision 34882
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The Commission would be abusing his discretionary power if, after stating to a claimant that he is eligible for a training course and allowing him to follow the said course, it subsequently realized its mistake and demanded that the benefits received be repaid. Case on appeal before the FCA.**NOTE: It was decided to appeal at the FCA. The Commission's policy remains the same, no matter who is at fault, benefits paid in error must be reimbursed. The jurisprudence has always been constant to this effect.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
error of Commission staff |
|
Decision 26083
Full Text of Decision 26083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The only course of action for an individual who has suffered monetary damages and emotional stress by relying on gross misinformation from the Commmission is to write a claim letter to the Minister of Human Resources. The next step would be to bring an action for damages in the appropriate court.
Decision 22886
Full Text of Decision 22886
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
Where there is clear prejudice resulting from wrong information given by the CEIC to a claimant, there is inherent unfairness in the CEIC being able to avoid the liability that any private litigant would incur simply because its obligations arise under statutory and regulatory provisions.
In circumstances such as these, where there is no doubt that the representation was made and was relied upon, a responsible course of action by the Commission would be to consider making an ex gracia payment to claimant to compensate for the loss. Notwithstanding this, I am bound by the law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision T-3006.91
Full Text of Decision T-3006.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
Based on past experience, claimant assumed that she would be paid 15 weeks of maternity benefit. There was no duty on the CEIC in this case to specifically warn her that she had not qualified to receive the maximum 15 weeks. I do not consider the CEIC's conduct in this matter to be at all negligent.
Action in tort to recover damages from the CEIC. Five general requirements enumerated for action to succeed. This claimant was the author of her own misfortune. She received accurate information which she misapplied to her particular situation.
Decision 18114
Full Text of Decision 18114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
As to the claim for damages as set-off against the overpayment, neither a Board nor an Umpire has jurisdiction to award such a remedy. If she has a valid claim for damages she may, of course, commence an action for recovery against Her Majesty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 17884
Full Text of Decision 17884
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
GRANGER quoted. Equity has no place in the face of the clear and peremptory provisions of the law. If the claimant has been aggrieved his remedy is to be had in the Federal Court and not on an appeal to the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
eligibility to hear case |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
charter arguments |
|
Decision 13237
Full Text of Decision 13237
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
If the claimant did receive the bad advice on the part of the Commission's staff, she ought fairly to be compensated for any loss of inconvenience, but this is not the forum for that. Context: no interruption of earnings by reason of monies received upon separation from work.
Decision 12626
Full Text of Decision 12626
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear that wrong advice given by an employee of the Commission cannot justify the Umpire in failing to apply the law. The claimant's remedy would be to institute an action for damages in the Courts of the land.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision S-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The Commission, like any other government body, could be held responsible for making damage caused by its mistakes but this could not be invoked to contravene the very Act the Commission had been created to administer. Its actions may not be a source ofrights. [p._16]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A-0392.78
Full Text of Decision A-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Summary:
The Commission, like any other government body, could be held responsible for making damage caused by its mistakes but this could not be invoked to contravene the very Act the Commission had been created to administer. Its actions may not be a source ofrights. [p._16]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision A-0002.05
Full Text of Decision A-0002.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that irrespective of who's at fault, if the claimant is not entitled to the payment, then he must repay the benefits paid.
Decision A-0041.02
Full Text of Decision A-0041.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear that misinformation by the Commission is no basis for relief from the operation of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
not definite |
|
Decision 42726
Full Text of Decision 42726
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The total amount allocation was correct on the letter from the Commission but was lacking in the specifics of the said allocation. Umpire ruled that no prejudice to the claimant has been shown by this clerical error which carried no consequence for the claimant. A clmt is not relieved from the operation of the allocation provisions even if the Commission commits an error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
material fact |
mistake as to a |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 41322
Full Text of Decision 41322
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Jurisprudence has long upheld that even if an agent of the Commission makes an error, and even if it is prejudicial to a claimant, such as giving wrong advice, this gives a claimant no rights which the law does not provide.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 40700
Full Text of Decision 40700
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It has been held that if a Commission agent gives a claimant erroneous advice to his or her prejudice, this still does not create a claim to benefit not provided for by the Act and Regulations. The Commission has the right and in fact an obligation to correct mistakes when they are detected which was done promptly in this case.
Decision 36937
Full Text of Decision 36937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Advice given by the Commission, no matter how poor that advice is, cannot change the law. Claimant cannot become entitled to something not otherwise accorded in the Act simply because of an error of a Commission employee.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
elected or appointed representative |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
Decision 36893
Full Text of Decision 36893
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the provision of wrong advice, or failure to properly advise a claimant
by Commission staff cannot lead to exceptions from the application of the Act and Regulations. Relying on Granger (A-0684.95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
as income |
|
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
Decision A-0672.95
Full Text of Decision A-0672.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Commission approved claimant to start course prior to termination of benefit period. Course delayed by Public Service strike. She started the course after her benefit had expired and received benefits due to a computer error. Umpire held that benefit was not paid in error. FCA concluded that even if it could be said that payments were not made in error, that alone in law would not entitle the claimant to the benefits as the payments were made in contradiction of the Act. Cites Bissonnette (A-425-85), Champagne (A-526-85) and Boileau (A-692-94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
benefit period terminated before course started |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Decision 32632
Full Text of Decision 32632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is a well established principle of jurisprudence that the Commission is not liable for an error of its employee. The FCA in Granger (A-684-85) states the principle clearly and applied it again in a subsequent decision: Barzan (A-373-92).
Decision 22874A
Full Text of Decision 22874A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is obvious that this must be so (Commission not bound by errors from its staff) or else employees of the Commission could amend an Act of Parliament by promising benefits to potential claimants which the Commission is not legally authorized to pay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
minor attachment claimants |
|
|
Decision 20944
Full Text of Decision 20944
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0551.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
applicability |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Decision A-0551.92
Full Text of Decision A-0551.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Employment reduced to 1 day a week. He could have scheduled his day of work in any given week so that there would have been 7 clear days for an interruption of earnings. Facts indistinguishable from GRANGER. He acted, so it seems, upon the erroneous understanding of the law by an agent of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
applicability |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Decision 21245
Full Text of Decision 21245
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
To say that an appeal to an Umpire is the appropriate route to take is not correct when the individual's complaint stems from misinformation which has been given by the Commission and claimant has thereby suffered injury. Umpires have no authority to take remedial action.
Decision 19846
Full Text of Decision 19846
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Even if the source of his belief was the incorrect advice given to him, it still would not alter the result that incentive monies are earnings for neither the CEIC staff, Boards nor Umpires can change the application of the Act to the circumstances of any particular claim.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
retirement allowances |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
paid to third party |
|
Decision 17594
Full Text of Decision 17594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Was advised that he had 17 of the 18 weeks required to qualify. He then worked 1 more week. Then advised that previous notice was erroneous, that 19 weeks were in fact required. Misinformation is of no avail to a claimant and cannot relieve one from theoperation of the law.
Decision 17474
Full Text of Decision 17474
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Now taken for granted since GRANGER that erroneous information that might be given to the claimant by CEIC officials concerning the interpretation of the legislation on that claimant's specific situation and that are later detrimental to same claimant are not binding on CEIC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
out of canada |
|
|
Decision 16815
Full Text of Decision 16815
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is extremely regrettable that the Commission officer should have failed to alert the claimant that these monies were earnings. It is clear however that a Commission official cannot alter the requirements of the Act and Regulations just by misstating their content.
Decision 16522
Full Text of Decision 16522
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Even if claimant had been told that she was entitled to 15 weeks of maternity UI, she would not be entitled to receive those benefits because of s.18. The Commission cannot alter the provisions of the Act which limit maternity UI to that which claimant has received.
Decision 16447
Full Text of Decision 16447
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant acted on misadvice from the Commission and took an early retirement package believing that monies rolled over in an RRSP are not earnings. Rarely is there such clear evidence that advice was sought and acted upon. No relief as per GRANGER.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
Decision 16390
Full Text of Decision 16390
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant borrowed money after being told that she was entitled to further benefits. The Commission says that even if claimant had been misinformed, that could not operate so as to entitle her to receive benefits to which she was not otherwise entitled. This is clearly the law.
Decision 16015
Full Text of Decision 16015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is alleged that claimant was told by UI staff he could receive UI while taking the course. Even if he had been misled by an employee, that would not by itself qualify him for UI: the mistake of an employee does not create a right under the law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
extent of availability required |
|
Decision 15943
Full Text of Decision 15943
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
As for the instructions contained in the pamphlet relating to self-employment, I adopt the words of CUB 10484 that the Act and the Regulations take precedence over the booklets, and entitlement to UI is determined by the legislation and not by pamphlets.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
rationale |
|
|
| claim procedure |
applicability |
general |
|
Decision 15555
Full Text of Decision 15555
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Even in the case of mispresentation by CEIC, which was far from being established, CEIC could not allow the payment of benefits to which the insured person was not entitled. Caselaw does not recognize the doctrine of demurrer in such cases.
Decision 15290
Full Text of Decision 15290
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
There is evidence that he was misinformed by the Commission staff before going to California for 2 weeks. According to GRANGER, the Umpire must apply the law and the Commission is bound by the law notwithstanding any commitments to the contrary.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Decision 14454
Full Text of Decision 14454
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
She was told that she would be entitled to 50 weeks but was only paid 39. Misinformation cannot be pleaded to entitle claimant to benefits to which not otherwise entitled. If the legislation does not provide for it, no benefit can accrue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
benefit periods |
duration |
|
Decision 14043
Full Text of Decision 14043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It has been repeatedly held that even where erroneous information is given, this is not binding on the Commission since it is the Act and Regulations which have to be interpreted by the Board and the Umpire.
Decision 13083
Full Text of Decision 13083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Rate of benefit; regardless of who was source of error, Act gives Commission authority to correct it retroactively and in any event mistake is not a source of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
record of employment erroneous |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 13038
Full Text of Decision 13038
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Real estate salesperson not unemployed. Estoppel will not arise when the conditions of a statute are not met. Quotes a Supreme Court judgment in support.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
weeks of unemployment |
|
Decision 12356
Full Text of Decision 12356
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Whether the Commission should have warned him of the 7 days required for an interruption of earnings, the clear provisions of the legislation cannot be overridden by failure in the Commission, if such there was, to communicate those provisions to all potential claimants. [p. 5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 12259
Full Text of Decision 12259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Even if the Commission had misinformed him (regarding his absence from Canada), the result would be the same, as the Commission is not able to modify the law and the interpretations it makes do not have the force of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Decision 11723
Full Text of Decision 11723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Misleading or erroneous information given by an official of the Commission will not preclude the application of the legislation. The law can only be changed by Parliament. Misinformation does not give rise to a liability on the part of the Crown. Estoppel cannot be invoked.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| job creation |
remuneration to be repaid as overpayment |
|
|
| job creation |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 11654
Full Text of Decision 11654
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Misinformation may enlarge a claimant's rights which might otherwise be lost, for example good cause for antedating. The Act of the Commission's employees does not change the law but only allows to come within it. It does not create a right which does not otherwise exist.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Decision 11661
Full Text of Decision 11661
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
I sympathize with claimant for having been misinformed by the Commission regarding her attendance at the course. However wrong the information may have been, it cannot alter the determination that she was not available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Decision 11612
Full Text of Decision 11612
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is true that the overpayment was caused in large measure by the Commission error but, under s.43, it has 36 months to reconsider a claim. The law is quite clear. Misinformation cannot entitle claimant to something not provided for in the legislation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 11613
Full Text of Decision 11613
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Misinformed by the Commission. Had he been given correct advice, obviously he would not have participated in the provincial program. This type of error cannot be pleaded to entitle claimant to benefits not otherwise payable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
government programs |
|
|
Decision 11566
Full Text of Decision 11566
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Left employment believing, on advice of CEIC, that money paid into RRSP would have no effect. Change in CEIC's interpretation. Mistake in interpretation is not a source of law unless it was made maliciously.
Decision 11510
Full Text of Decision 11510
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant in all good faith relied on Commission's advice that her business would not affect her eligibility. This is an argument of estoppel and must fail as estoppel cannot lie against the Commission as an agent of the Crown.
Requirements for eligibility established by Act of Parliament and they can only be altered by Parliament. The law is what it is stated to be and if an activity is clearly contrary to eligibility, no undertaking on the part of Commission can render it otherwise.
Decision 11398
Full Text of Decision 11398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Upon enquiry, she was told by the Commission that 17 insured weeks were required. 18 needed when she filed 3 weeks later. When an error is made by the Commission, an Umpire has no discretion to vary the legislation. Erroneous information does not relieve one of requirements.
Decision 11296
Full Text of Decision 11296
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Assuming that claimant was told by the Commission that he would be entitled to UI if he returned to school (after having left his employment), misleading or erroneous information given him will not preclude the application of the legislation.
Estoppel cannot be invoked to contravene the provisions of the Act. The Umpire has no power to alter or amend, neither the Commission or a Board. The duty of all 3 is to apply the law as it is. Estoppels cannot override the law of the land.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
extent of availability required |
|
Decision 11283
Full Text of Decision 11283
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
According to case law, CEIC may reconsider a decision without new facts, since error on its part not binding on it. No right derives from error. Administrative power and duty to correct under s. 43.
Decision 11207
Full Text of Decision 11207
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Such booklets and other publications of the Commission cannot by their nature contain all the details of the rather complex UI legislation and certainly do not supplant the law itself.
Decision 11052
Full Text of Decision 11052
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
It is well established that the fact that a claimant acted upon misinformation cannot have the effect of entitling the claimant to benefits for which she was not otherwise entitled. Retroactive decision. [p. 6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
maximum payable |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 10721
Full Text of Decision 10721
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant complied with information in CEIC brochure but not with legislation. He says that the Commission is estopped from asserting any other rule. It is well established that estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat the clear requirements of legislation, which is what this would amount to.
Decision 10722
Full Text of Decision 10722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Claimant not having been referred, and admittedly not having been available during the course, he was not entitled to benefits. He was in no way misled into failing to claim benefits to which entitled as he never was entitled to them.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
identify issue |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
right of appeal |
responsibility |
Decision T-0387.81
Full Text of Decision T-0387.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The insured cannot be exempted from the requirements of the Act on the basis of the CEIC’s words or behaviour, since the Act alone determines his rights.
Decision S-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The Commission, like any other government body, could be held responsible for making damage caused by its mistakes but this could not be invoked to contravene the very Act the Commission had been created to administer. Its actions may not be a source ofrights. [p._16]
The Commission itself urged claimants to apply for pension and this was later held against them to deny UI. This action has extremely regrettable aspects. The rights of individuals under the Act cannot result solely from the Commission's conduct howeverregrettable. [p._15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A-0392.78
Full Text of Decision A-0392.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The Commission, like any other government body, could be held responsible for making damage caused by its mistakes but this could not be invoked to contravene the very Act the Commission had been created to administer. Its actions may not be a source ofrights. [p._16]
The Commission itself urged claimants to apply for pension and this was later held against them to deny UI. This action has extremely regrettable aspects. The rights of individuals under the Act cannot result solely from the Commission's conduct howeverregrettable. [p._15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
Decision 20310
Full Text of Decision 20310
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
The fact that other persons in his situation may have received UI in the past does not mean that the provisions of the Act should not be made to apply to him. As I stated in CUB 11227, disparities in enforcement processes can never justify departures from the rule of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work for brief period |
|
Decision 19102
Full Text of Decision 19102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
In spite of his experience over the previous 14 years, which appears quite fortunate to say the least, no rights have been acquired. Not having been subjected to the tests imposed by the statute does not lead to a finding that such tests should no longer be required of him.
Decision 13814A
Full Text of Decision 13814A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
The real reason for his appeal is that while previously attending the same course he received UI and can see no reason why he is treated differently. The simple answer is that he should not have received UI in the earlier years if the circumstances weresimilar to present ones.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
discrimination |
|
Decision 16534
Full Text of Decision 16534
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Claimant could see no reason why he was entitled to UI for the first course and disentitled for the second one. I agree with him but it is of no assistance to him because, in my view, he should have been disentitled for the first course.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
employment left |
|
Decision 14215
Full Text of Decision 14215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Claimant has collected UI during the summer before when not employed as supply teacher. There was then no attempt by the Commission to enforce the UI rules. Naturally she was upset in the summer 1986 when someone tried to impose such requirements on her. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
existence of refusal |
|
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
effective date |
|
Decision 14169
Full Text of Decision 14169
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
A pattern of conduct deemed at one time to comply with 14(a) is no binding precedent when the pattern is repeated subsequently and found to be wanting of these same requirements. It was open to the Board to make different findings of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Decision 13279
Full Text of Decision 13279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Context: availability. Administrative oversight cannot provide any justification in future for making exception to case law.
Decision 13116
Full Text of Decision 13116
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Context: earnings as income. If the Commission was wrong in 1984 and misapplied the law in a manner more generous to the claimant, it is no grounds to perpetuate the error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
as income |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Decision 12750
Full Text of Decision 12750
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Teacher allowed benefit in summer in 1986 and prior to 1985 but not in 1985. Uneven treatment from one summer to next is not a relevant factor. Claimant's conduct may have been different or Commission more vigilent in 1985 than other years.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
Decision 12405
Full Text of Decision 12405
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Disentitled one day per week; attending course part-time. I place no importance on fact that he may have received benefit 5 days out of 5 in past. Must not judge by comparing to past. Act governs despite these allegations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
unable to obtain suitable work |
|
Decision 11353
Full Text of Decision 11353
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Claimant's irritation arises out of the fact that he had been granted benefits the previous year. The misapplication of the Act previously is not a legal ground which entitles an Umpire to upset a Board's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work as requirement |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
interruption |
short period of time |
