UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Pirker v. Canada
A-753-00
2002 FCA 235, Malone J.A.
30/5/02
3 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division order dismissing application for judicial review of HRDC (Commission) decision to collect overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits--Appeal revolving around Motions Judge's conclusion appellant had received notification of overpayment within prescribed time limits set out in Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 43-- Appellant disagreeing with that conclusion--Issues whether appellant treated unfairly because not given opportunity to explain discrepancies in his evidence before contradictory evidence introduced by respondent, as required by rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.); whether Motions Judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact--Appeal dismissed--Motions Judge found appellant's evidence did not address issue of whether received notice, therefore cannot be said later evidence contradicted his affidavit evidence and rule in Browne v. Dunn cannot be said to apply--Further, appellant did not object to filing of that evidence by Crown-- As to second issue, S.C.C. decision in Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 577 indicating that appellate court should not interfere lightly with finding of fact reached by Trial Judge, that only where palpable and overriding error exists on record should finding of fact be overturned--No palpable or overriding errors of fact in decision under appeal--Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, s. 43.