Decision A0192.08
Full Text of Decision A0192.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
|
|
Summary:
A claimant is citing section 120 of the EIA to invite the FCA to reconsider a decision following the discovery of new facts. Before the Umpire, the claimant had attempted to show that the testimony by a new witness would constitute a new fact. The FCA confirms the Umpire's decision in that the alleged facts were not new.
Decision A0358.05
Full Text of Decision A0358.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
|
|
Summary:
This case involves an Umpire's refusal to reconsider an earlier decision. The Umpire was of the view that there were no new facts within the existing jurisprudence that could justify a reconsideration. The claimant himself in his written submissions recognized that there were no new facts. The Court considered that the claimant was essentially looking for a different result based on the same facts. On September 26, 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the claimant's application for leave to appeal.
Decision A0512.07
Full Text of Decision A0512.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a full-time university student. He is only available for work during certain hours and days of the week. His chances of finding employment are therefore limited because of his restrictions. Thus, the Umpire did not commit any error when he determined that the claimant did not establish that he was available for work during his period of full-time studies. In addition, the FCA concluded that the claimant could not introduce new evidence because the pre-existing conditions necessary to introduce such evidence did not exist.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
charter |
|
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
Decision A-0594.01
Full Text of Decision A-0594.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
The Court concluded that the claimant was bound by the position her counsel took in front of the Umpire and she could not raise new factual issues that were not in front of the Umpire.
Decision A-0248.01
Full Text of Decision A-0248.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
Proof of misconduct is first a question of fact arising from the record as a whole and including the testimony given at the hearing. The absence of the transcript of the memoranda substantially limited a full assessment of the facts by the Umpire. The Court found that the record, as constituted, did not allow it to intervene on a finding of fact, and the application for judicial review was summarily dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision 50988
Full Text of Decision 50988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0248.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision 25450
Full Text of Decision 25450
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
S. 86 is not intended to enable a claimant to re-argue the appeal before an Umpire who has already rendered a decision unless there is new evidence of a decisive nature which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Decision 19484
Full Text of Decision 19484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
When claimant is not provided with notice of hearing, the decision of the Board must be considered a nullity. It is better to arrange rehearing before a different Board. If impossible, it is essential that the Board start afresh and not be limited to 'new evidence' under s.86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
notice of hearing |
|
Decision 12836
Full Text of Decision 12836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
Appeal procedure brought to a definitive conclusion by the Board. Later induced to reverse its previous and validly rendered decision. Clearly the second decision is a nullity.
If it be too late for the Commission to resort to s.86 as stated in VON FINDENIGG once the appeal procedure to the Board had been invoked, then a fortiori too it was too late once the appeal procedure is brought to a definitive conclusion.
Decision 12787
Full Text of Decision 12787
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
Hearing by board on 2-7; disentitlement upheld; insured said had found a babysitter on 2-8. Duty of CEIC to reconsider. New facts demanding new decision and new right of appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Decision A0481.10
Full Text of Decision A0481.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
On October 28, 1999, the employer informed all its employees that the plant would be closing and paid an amount as floating holiday pay, severance pay and vacation pay. The Commission allocated the amounts as of October 24, 1999. By decision dated December 13, 2007, the BOR concluded that the separation of employment occurred on December 31, 1999, and that the earnings should be allocated as of that date. The Commission allocated the earnings as of December 31, 1999, re-calculated the overpayments for each claimant and issued new notices of overpayment. By another decision dated June 26, 2009, the BOR allowed the claimants appeal finding that the revised notices of overpayment constituted new decisions made outside of the timeframe of s. 52 of the EIA and also found that the new decisions constituted new facts under s. 120 of the EIA. The FCA concluded that the Commission’s actions following the December 13, 2007, decision were merely an application of this decision and not new decisions. Consequently, the deadline for reconsideration found at s. 52 of the EIA was not applicable to the situation. With respect to s. 120 of the EIA, the FCA found that the Commission’s new calculations were not new facts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision A0269.10
Full Text of Decision A0269.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
In his initial decision, the Umpire allowed the Commission's appeal finding that the Commission had properly allocated the money received by the claimant and his co-workers. The claimant requested reconsideration of the Umpire's decision under s. 120 of the EIA. In support of his request, the claimant submitted a certified copy of a Proposal to Creditors as an alleged new fact. An uncertified copy of the same proposal was before the Umpire when he rendered the initial decision. The Umpire dismissed the request for reconsideration. The FCA dismissed the application finding that the Umpire had reasonably concluded that the alleged new fact was not material to the claimant's claim and consequently did not meet the new facts test.
Decision A0278.08
Full Text of Decision A0278.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The FCA was not persuaded that the Umpire made any error warranting the court's intervention in refusing the applications to reconsider his decisions under section 120 of the EIA. In particular, the alleged new evidence was not before the Umpire when he made the reconsideration decisions, nor did it meet the discoverability requirement as it referred to events that had already occured and were known prior to the hearings before the BOR and Umpire and could have been presented in those hearings if the claimants had acted diligently. In addition, the FCA noted that the claimants appeared to be asking the court to conduct a new hearing on the merits of their applications for benefits as well as the imposition of penalties and notices of violation against them and correctly stated that it cannot do so. Similar case: A0279.08.
Decision A-0091.05
Full Text of Decision A-0091.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant requested reconsideration of the Umpire¿s decision on the basis that a customs officer had obtained illegally the information that he was outside Canada while receiving EI benefits. The court concluded that such allegation is not a new fact as per section 120 of the EI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision 61630A
Full Text of Decision 61630A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-91-05
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision A-0258.01
Full Text of Decision A-0258.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The claimant submitted an application to amend the Umpire's decision in light of facts she claimed were new. Application dismissed by the Umpire, who found that the claimant did not show that the evidence she was trying to introduce could not have been obtained by a diligent person at the time of her testimony before the BOR. Reference made to Chan (A-0185.94). Application for judicial review summarily dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 48476A
Full Text of Decision 48476A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0258.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision A-0728.97
Full Text of Decision A-0728.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Umpire dismissed request to produce a doctor's certificate, saying that the evidence had been available during the hearing before the BOR, that the claimant had not tried to present a certificate at that time and that it did not constitute a new fact. FCA stated that the fundamental condition for new evidence is that it be material, in that it is likely to have a major impact on the resolution of the issue, if not to provide a complete solution.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision 39748A
Full Text of Decision 39748A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Ruled that the facts which the claimant presents as "new facts" do not constitute new facts within the meaning of that term according to FCA ruling in Conita Chan (A-0185.94) for the obvious reason that the payroll sheets consist of facts which could have been discovered by the claimant before he took his appeal before the BOR.
Decision 39562A
Full Text of Decision 39562A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
New facts within the meaning of section 120 must be decisive in relation to the matter submitted. The fact that the claimant proved his availability for the period in question is not a new fact that was decisive for the case submitted, since the Umpire did not have to rule on the claimant’s availability but rather on his unemployment status.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision A-0430.96
Full Text of Decision A-0430.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant disqualified for having voluntarily left his employment without just cause. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. Claimant sought reconsideration by way of a decision rendered by an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act (LSA). Decision maintained by Umpire. FCA held that reconsideration of the umpire's decision based on the decision of an adjudicator made in paralleled proceedings taken pursuant to the LSA was unnecessary since the factual conclusions of the adjudicator were not "new facts" within S.86 of the U.I. Act and were irrelevant to the issues before the umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Decision A-0593.96
Full Text of Decision A-0593.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that a "fact" cannot be considered "new" more than four years after it is brought to the attention of the parties concerned. In this case, the claimants were negligent in failing to clearly ask for my decision to be changed under s. 86 of the Act. Reference to Chan A-185.94. Court upheld the Umpire’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
with diligence |
|
Decision 36673
Full Text of Decision 36673
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant asked to provide a list of job search but did not respond. Claimant not entitled as having failed to prove his availability. It was only after the claimant realized the consequences of refusing to provide a job search that he retained counsel and submitted the information he ought to have provided earlier. Job search lists cannot in the circumstances be considered new facts for the purpose of re-consideration. Refers to FCA in the case of Conita Chan A-185-94.
Decision 32724A
Full Text of Decision 32724A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Ruled that the facts submitted by the beneficiary were only a different version of facts already known. The information provided by the beneficiary contained no new facts, and could not provide grounds for intervention by the umpire. Reference to FCA ruling in Conita Chan (A-185-94).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 25663
Full Text of Decision 25663
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0620.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision A-0620.94
Full Text of Decision A-0620.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
New evidence was presented before me in the form of written statements by four other former employees that corroborated the evidence of claimant, said the Umpire. We do not believe that it was really new evidence in this case, but rather a reiteration by claimant of facts already before the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 28950
Full Text of Decision 28950
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The only new fact in the present instance is simply the judgment, which is a judicial fact, but not new facts which form the basis of this case. The Umpire cannot be bound by the decision of another tribunal.
Decision 27484
Full Text of Decision 27484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Some time after the appeal was allowed by the Board, claimant entered a plea of guilty to the criminal offence of fraud and was sentenced. Held by the Board that it was bound by the facts it deemed material at the time of its decision. In my view, the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision A-0185.94
Full Text of Decision A-0185.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
A different version of facts already known to claimant, mere afterthoughts or the sudden realization of the consequences of acts done in the past are not new facts.
New facts, for reconsideration by an Umpire under s. 86, are facts that either happened after the decision was rendered or prior to the decision but that could not have been discovered by a claimant acting diligently. In both cases the facts alleged must have been decisive of the issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 26080
Full Text of Decision 26080
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
CUB 5785A set forth a 3-fold test for the proper introduction of new facts. First, the evidence was not obtainable with reasonable diligence for use at the trial. Second, it would have an important influence on the result, not necessarily decisive. Three, it must be apparently credible.
Decision 23835A
Full Text of Decision 23835A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
As stated in CUB 7349, new facts may only be introduced in evidence if they did not exist at the time of the hearing before the Board, or could not have been known to the claimant before the hearing.
The letter now submitted (stating that he was employed part-time while he was a student) merely sets out facts which were certainly known to the claimant at the time of the hearing, and is therefore an attempt to very belatedly after an adverse decisionin an Umpire appeal introduce new evidence.
Decision A-0263.93
Full Text of Decision A-0263.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant sought to have the Umpire's decision reconsidered by providing a detailed Record of Searching for Work found among his papers some time after the hearing. No new fact under s. 86, said the Umpire, for he told the Board that he was looking for other work. No comment by Federal Court.
Decision 20981A
Full Text of Decision 20981A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0263.93
Decision 23146
Full Text of Decision 23146
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Without prejudice rule raised. Held that the statement "The terms of this settlement shall not be referred to in any subsequent proceedings between the parties" does not apply to proceedings before the Umpire, not being between the employer and the claimant. New facts allowed as part of the record.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 22053A
Full Text of Decision 22053A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Without prejudice rule examined and discussed. Settlement agreement providing for general damages contained a without prejudice caution and is not admissible in evidence as proof that the loss of employment was not due to the claimant's misconduct. Consequently, they are not new facts under s.86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 22638
Full Text of Decision 22638
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Letter submitted subsequent to Board's decision tending to show that settlement monies were paid as discrimination damages, not for loss of salary. An Umpire cannot receive new evidence going to the merits of a claim. Furthermore, this evidence is not analogous to "new facts" under s. 86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 21653A
Full Text of Decision 21653A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
If failing in a decision to adopt one line of jurisprudence in preference to another, or decisions rendered subsequently could justify reconsideration of a decision already rendered, the state of the law would be chaotic, not only in UI cases but in allcases of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
elected or appointed representative |
|
Decision A-0109.92
Full Text of Decision A-0109.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The new evidence, i.e. the oral testimony given before another tribunal by the employer's representative long after the Board's hearing, was of such a nature to contradict the position adopted by the employer at the hearing and could consequently affect the assessment of his credibility.
Decision 18287
Full Text of Decision 18287
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0109.92
Decision 20334A
Full Text of Decision 20334A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
A reading of s.86 indicates that the power therein is fairly circumscribed. Indeed, case law directs an Umpire to enquire whether any new fact submitted was not available to the appellant and could not have been available after the exercise of due diligence to obtain it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
for a spouse |
|
|
Decision 19544A
Full Text of Decision 19544A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
This is not a proper ground for the exercise by me of a power of rescission of my decision pursuant to s.86. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in no way constitutes "new facts". Cases already decided cannot be constantly reopened because of laterlegal interpretations.
Nor does the ground based on s.15 of the Charter involve any "new facts" under s.86 or demonstrate any mistake of fact in my decision of 4-91. In relying on s.15 at this time, the claimant is simply raising a legal argument which he could have raised before me at the hearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
charter |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision 19530A
Full Text of Decision 19530A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
I do not consider that the affidavit now filed can be regarded as "new facts". He has simply provided proper evidence for the first time in support of facts which he had already referred to in previous interviews and statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 17025A
Full Text of Decision 17025A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The information which the claimant suggests is "new" was within his capacity to know prior to the hearing before the Board and is not "new" in the sense of that word as defined by jurisprudence.
Decision 18856
Full Text of Decision 18856
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Asks the Board to review its decision and provides supporting documents: job search and financial statements. The evidence she is now seeking to introduce does not constitute in any way new facts of which she was unaware at that time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts |
Decision 18609
Full Text of Decision 18609
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Commission's decision overturned by FC. Claimant's name not in the list of cases. I doubt this can be dealt with under s.86. No fact is new, nor has anyone made any mistake as to a material fact. It would be stretching the meaning of new fact to includean issue of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
test cases |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
definition |
time to appeal to bor and Umpire |
Decision 17152
Full Text of Decision 17152
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Disqualification for voluntary leaving removed by Board. Employer appeals on the basis that a provincial judge ruled that claimant quit. That decision constitutes new evidence which was not before the Board. Appeal referred back to Board for rehearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 16241A
Full Text of Decision 16241A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The letter from the doctor does not contain any new facts. These existed on 8-2-89 but, for whatever reason, were not presented to the Umpire or Board. It is one's responsibility to present all pertinent facts. If one does not do so, this alone does notmake a fact a new fact.
Decision A-0369.88
Full Text of Decision A-0369.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
The Umpire was entitled under s. 86 to receive and consider as additional evidence the agreement reached before the Labour Board, which was not submitted to the Board of Referees. Since new facts may be presented to an Umpire under s. 86, it was correct to allow claimant's appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 14800
Full Text of Decision 14800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0369.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 14572A
Full Text of Decision 14572A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Conflicting decisions by other Umpires do not constitute new facts under s.86. An Umpire cannot himself change his decision on the basis of conflicting decisions subsequently rendered by other Umpires.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision 13046A
Full Text of Decision 13046A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
Neither the submissions nor the affidavit refer to contain new facts in the sense that these facts were not known or available to the claimant at the time of the hearing before the Board of Referees.
Decision 13228A
Full Text of Decision 13228A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Summary:
It is surely not too much to expect that the claimant tell the whole story from the very outset and not keep stringing the Commission, the Board and the Umpire along with allegedly new facts [under s.86] until after the Umpire has rendered a decision.
Decision 18847A
Full Text of Decision 18847A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
rationale |
|
Summary:
S.86 was designed as an ameliorative provision of a procedural nature authorizing the Commission, Boards and Umpires to rescind or amend any decision given in any particular claim for benefit either on the presentation of new facts or the discovery of amaterial pre-existing fact.
Decision A0043.11
Full Text of Decision A0043.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
with diligence |
|
Summary:
The Commission contends that it was not open to the Umpire to reconsider his earlier decision as he was not presented with new facts as contemplated by section 120 of the Act. The claimant reemphasized that his depression and alcohol use in 2005 and 2006 left him unable to complete adequately his EI claim and attached a letter from his physician confirming his depression. The FCA concluded that the Umpire applied the wrong test for new facts. The test is not whether the claimant was aware that a medical opinion had to be produced, but whether the claimant acting diligently could have produced this evidence. In this case, the claimant’s medical condition was known at the relevant time and a medical opinion confirming this condition could have been obtained, if sought. It follows that the medical note cannot be viewed as “new facts”. In the absence of new facts, the Umpire had no authority to reconsider his earlier decision.
Decision A-0593.96
Full Text of Decision A-0593.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
with diligence |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that a "fact" cannot be considered "new" more than four years after it is brought to the attention of the parties concerned. In this case, the claimants were negligent in failing to clearly ask for my decision to be changed under s. 86 of the Act. Reference to Chan A-185.94. Court upheld the Umpire’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 13015
Full Text of Decision 13015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
with diligence |
|
Summary:
Surely, there must be some responsibility on the Commission to act promptly and with reasonable diligence so as to minimize overpayments. Claimant acted bona fide. Technically, the law is against him but the equities are all on his side.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
reduction in hours |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
Decision 12903
Full Text of Decision 12903
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
with diligence |
|
Summary:
Investigation into availability and decision not made within reasonable time; s. 86 considered. Nothing in that section provides for obligation to act diligently or within specific time. If new facts exist, s. 86 empowers Commission to amend initial decision.
