Notification is essential to complete the decision-making process created by the legislation. Notice to a claimant must take place within the specified thirty-six month deadline in order to give the Commission a right of action and recovery against the claimant. This means that the Commission has thirty-six months from the date of payment to reconsider a claim for benefits, make its decision, do the necessary calculation and notify the claimant. It is only when the Commission decides that an error has been made in the payment of benefits in one direction or the other that it must notify the claimant both of the fact that an error has been made and of the amount in question.
Canada (A.G.) v. Laforest [1988], F.C.J. No. 546 (F.C.A.) A-607-87
The obligation to repay an overpayment is created by section 43 of the Employment Insurance Act. However, this obligation only arises when the Commission notifies the claimant of the amount of the overpayment. It is at this point that the debt becomes liquid and payable. The date on which the Commission notifies the claimant of the amount to be repaid determines the starting point of the prescription for recovery of the debt. Accordingly, the Commission's obligation to notify a claimant of an overpayment and its right to recover the overpayment are necessarily interdependent. In the absence of notice of overpayment, the claimant has no obligation to repay the amount and the Commission has no right of recovery. Late notice will have the same effect as lack of notice.
Briere v. C.E.I.C., [1989] 3 F.C. 88 (F.C.A.) A-637-86
This does not mean however, that the overpayment decision necessarily has to specify the amount of the overpayment or that a single notice must be sent to the claimant advising of the overpayment and its amount. The legislation does not impose any specific form on the notice to claimants.
Brien v. C.E.I.C., April 23, 1997, F.C.J. No. 492 (F.C.A.) A-425-96
Rajotte v. C.E.I.C., April 23, 1997, F.C.J. No. 493 (F.C.A.) A-426-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Gagnon, May 28, 1997, F.C.J. No. 737 (F.C.A.) A-676-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Perrier, June 9, 1997, F.C.J. No. 889 (F.C.A.) A-984-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Rouleau, October 31, 1997, F.C.J. No. 1523 (F.C.A.) A-930-96, A-932-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Lemay, [2002] (F.C.A) A-172-01
It does not matter whether the different steps set out in the legislation are taken on the same day or whether the claimant is informed of the various decisions as they are made or at the very end of the process, or whether the decisions are recorded in a single document, since the only time that matters is the time when the process is completed, that is, the time when the claimant is notified by the Commission of the amount of the overpayment.
Brien v. C.E.I.C., April 23, 1997, F.C.J. No. 492 (F.C.A.) A-425-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Gagnon, May 28, 1997, F.C.J. No. 737 (F.C.A.) A-676-96
The Commission is fully entitled to first notify the claimant that it has reconsidered his or her claim, that it has concluded that there was an overpayment, that it has determined the amount of the overpayment, that it will eventually inform the claimant of the amount of the overpayment, and second to later advise the claimant of the amount.
Brien v. C.E.I.C., April 23, 1997, F.C.J. No. 492 (F.C.A.) A-425-96
Rajotte v. C.E.I.C., April 23, 1997 (F.C.A.), F.C.J. No. 493 A-426-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Rouleau, October 31, 1997, F.C.J. No. 1523 (F.C.A.) A-930-96, A-932-96
It is the notification of the overpayment amount that determines how far back in time the Commission may go in the course of its reconsideration, and that triggers the mechanism for recovering the debt discovered in the course of its reconsideration.
Brien v. C.E.I.C., April 23, 1997, F.C.J. No. 492 (F.C.A.) A-425-96
Late notice or lack of notice by the Commission under section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act will result in the Commission being unable to recover any overpayment of benefits.
Briere v. C.E.I.C., [1989] 3 F.C. 88 (F.C.A.) A-637-86
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2009-04-28