L. K. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

L. K. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The recall letter was not a new fact because the claimant had it before the hearing and could have produced it with reasonable diligence; the letter was not decisive and instead corroborates that the claimant voluntarily retired before the recall date, so the s.66 test is not met and the Tribunal's decision was not based on a mistake of material fact.

Citation
2015 SSTGDEI 55
Parties
Claimant: L. K.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Application to Rescind or Amend
Outcome
Application to rescind or amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission Under S.66 DESD Act, New Facts Doctrine, Voluntary Leaving, Pension and Severance Allocation
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Law Rescission Under S.66 DESD Act New Facts Doctrine Voluntary Leaving Pension and Severance Allocation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. K.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Application to Rescind or Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision in GE-14-3796 should be rescinded or amended under s.66 of the DESD Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's recall letter constitutes new facts or shows a material mistake of fact
  3. 3 Whether the claimant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering and submitting the recall letter

Ratio Decidendi

The recall letter was not a new fact because the claimant had it before the hearing and could have produced it with reasonable diligence; the letter was not decisive and instead corroborates that the claimant voluntarily retired before the recall date, so the s.66 test is not met and the Tribunal's decision was not based on a mistake of material fact.

Court Disposition

Application to rescind or amend dismissed

Orders

  • Application to rescind or amend dismissed
  • Decision GE-14-3796 is not rescinded or amended