Previous page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CUb 28929B
IN THE MATTER of the Unemployment Insurance Act
and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by Robert Chisholm
and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by a claimant from a decision by the oard of Referees given at Ottawa,Ontario, on February 23, 1995.
D E C I S I 0 N
JEROME, A.C.J.:
This is an application pursuant to section 86 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to amend CUB 28929A, dated August 29, 1995, wherein the claimant's file was returned to the Commission, on consent, for an appropriate determination.
----------
Section 86 reads as follows:86. The Commission, a board of referees or the umpire may in respect of any decision given in any particular claim for benefit rescind or amend the decision on the presentation of new facts or on being satisfied that the decision was given without knowledge of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact.
In CUB 19346, the Umpire ruled that "new facts" must relate to the matter in issue.
This case has progressed as follows. On December 22, 1994, the Ministry of Human Resources Development Canada wrote to the claimant to inform him that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he had only worked 17 weeks when he needed 20 weeks to qualify. This decision was amended by letter dated January 31, 1995, wherein the eligibility period was shortened to 18 weeks, although the decision with respect to the claimant's eligibility did not change. The claimant appealed this decision to the Board of Referees. On February 23, 1995, the Board determined that the only issue over which it had jurisdiction was the number of weeks worked by the claimant. Consequently, it rejected the appeal. The claimant appealed this decision to the Umpire. The Commission consented to the appeal and the Chief Umpire sent the matter back to the Commission for an "appropriate determination." The claimant sought to amend this decision such that the Commission would be directed to include the claimant in its "ON-SITE" program and to extend the appropriate benefits to him. That application was dismissed by CUB 28929A on the grounds that no new facts were presented which were relevant to the determination of the issue before the Commission and the Board of Referees, namely the number of weeks worked by the claimant. The claimant seeks to amend that decision on the grounds that the Commission was charged with deciding both his
Previous page ----------------------------2 pages to go--------------------------- Next page