Y. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Y. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The applicant failed to present new facts within the meaning of section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act: documents previously submitted are not new; the hospitalization occurred after the relevant appeal period and is irrelevant to the 2010-2011 extension request; and the applicant's emails consist of assertions and personal statements that do not constitute decisive facts; therefore the application to rescind or amend the Umpire's decision is rejected.

Citation
2014 SSTAD 402
Parties
Applicant: Y. B.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) / Application to Rescind or Amend Decision
Outcome
Application to rescind or amend refused.
Legal Topics
Rescission or Amendment of Tribunal Decision, New Facts Test, Extension of Time for Appeal, Jurisdictional Remedies, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Rescission or Amendment of Tribunal Decision New Facts Test Extension of Time for Appeal Jurisdictional Remedies Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y. B.

Applicant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) / Application to Rescind or Amend Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant presented new facts under section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act sufficient to rescind or amend the Umpire's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Umpire's decision was made without knowledge of, or based on a mistake as to, some material fact
  3. 3 Whether post-decision medical evidence and voluminous personal emails constitute new facts relevant to an extension of time applied for in 2010-2011

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to present new facts within the meaning of section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act: documents previously submitted are not new; the hospitalization occurred after the relevant appeal period and is irrelevant to the 2010-2011 extension request; and the applicant's emails consist of assertions and personal statements that do not constitute decisive facts; therefore the application to rescind or amend the Umpire's decision is rejected.

Court Disposition

Application to rescind or amend refused.

Orders

  • Application to rescind or amend the Umpire's decision of January 23, 2013 is rejected
  • No change is made to the Umpire's decision; applicant advised judicial review/appeal routes are available