Summary of Issue: Right Of Appeal

Decision 77303 Full Text of Decision 77303

On March 31, 2011, the Commission sent a letter to the claimant requesting an explanation for the seventeen month delay in filing his appeal. No response has been received from the claimant, therefore unable to ascertain that there are any special reasons which would warrant granting an extension of the appeal period. The appeal was not brought within the sixty-day limit prescribed by section 116 of the Employment Insurance Act. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76682 Full Text of Decision 76682

The claimant appealed a Commission decision almost four years after being notified of the decision. On 19 December 2006, the claimant was notified that he failed to declare earnings he received between 23 April and 14 May 2006 while on benefits and a penalty was imposed, along with a Notice of Violation. On 17 March 2008, the claimant was notified by letter that he provided incorrect information about starting work on 16 April 2007 and that he did not declare any earnings received from his employer. A Notice of Violation was also issued. On 25 February 2008, the claimant spoke to an Investigation and Control Officer stating that he cannot afford 50% of his benefits going to the overpayment as he has to raise 4 children. On 12 September 2010, the claimant was advised by letter that the Commission cannot pay him employment insurance benefits due to an insufficient number of insurable hours of work on account of the violation. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A-0052.86 Full Text of Decision A-0052.86

Assuming without deciding that the 21-day time limit was not complied with, we do not think that such non-compliance can operate so as to deprive the Umpire of jurisdiction to hear the appeal [brought within 60 days]. S. 87 is not before us to decide.

Decision 11578 Full Text of Decision 11578

Refer to: A-0052.86

Decision 21932 Full Text of Decision 21932

Claimant raised the issue of delay of more than one year in hearing this appeal by the Umpire. Case law dealing with rights under criminal law examined. This is not such a case. I do not believe that prejudice can be inferred from the delay in this case. Not a ground for appeal.

Decision 20961 Full Text of Decision 20961

It is argued that the 21-month delay (between filing the appeal and date of hearing) is in and of itself unreasonable. CUB 16415 quoted. The delay in issue is not in itself unreasonable and further, it has not caused prejudice to claimants such as wouldrender it unreasonable.

Decision 16415 Full Text of Decision 16415

According to the insured, the 16-month delay between filing the appeal and the hearing date is much too long and is equivalent to justice denied. Argument not considered valid. A delay of this length where the freedom and security of the person are not involved does not appear unreasonable.

Decision 24072 Full Text of Decision 24072

The Commission's failure to file the appeal docket and its statement of observations within 60 days is not cause for dismissing its appeal (see GIROUX A.). However, I am not prepared to allow any material filed outside the 60-day time period to form part of the record.

Decision A-0086.79 Full Text of Decision A-0086.79

According to Umpire, the appeal by the CEIC is void because it did not comply with the 60 days allowed under Reg. 68(3) for filing the docket. Judgment reversed: lateness in filing the docket cannot affect the outcome of the appeal.

Decision A-0117.79 Full Text of Decision A-0117.79

The Umpire decided not to hear the Commission as it did not file the appeal docket within 60 days as required by reg. 68(3). The Court ruled that a new hearing is to be held during which the same rights shall be recognized to both parties.

Decision A-0087.79 Full Text of Decision A-0087.79

According to Umpire, the appeal by the CEIC is void because it did not comply with the 60 days allowed under Reg. 68(3) for filing the docket. Judgment reversed: lateness in filing the docket cannot affect the outcome of the appeal.

Decision A-0691.78 Full Text of Decision A-0691.78

According to Umpire, the appeal by the CEIC is void because it did not comply with the 60 days allowed under Reg. 68(3) for filing the docket. Judgment reversed: lateness in filing the docket cannot affect the outcome of the appeal.

Decision A-0689.78 Full Text of Decision A-0689.78

The Umpire refused to hear the CEIC because it had not complied with the 60 day time allowed under Reg. 68(3) for filing the appeal docket. Judgment wrong in law. Although judge has charge of the proceedings, must apply the same rules to both parties.

Decision A-0690.78 Full Text of Decision A-0690.78

Appeal by CEIC cannot be deemed to be void simply because it did not comply with 60 day period allowed by Reg. 184(3), now 68(3), for filing the docket.