If a worker is not satisfied with the judge's determination, the worker may
appeal the decision by written request within 30 days of when the determination was made.
An applicant may only
appeal a decision with respect to eligibility if the applicant has new information that was not presented with the original request.
It's worth noting that if your claim has already been decided by a court, unfortunately you can
only appeal the decision within 21 days of it being made.
A recent Court of
Appeal decision confirms that insurance companies don't have to tell claimants about limitation periods.
On
appeal the decision against a refused or cancelled certificate may be reversed, but where that decision was wrong, there is no provision to award monetary compensation for losses incurred.
Of those rejected, over a million applicants do not bother to
appeal the decision because of confusion and / or frustration about the process.
It all depends on how federal government attorneys decide to respond to a court of
appeals decision last week.
Can the defendant raise an argument in his defense, move to dismiss, or
appeal the decision under these constitutional grounds?
A recent Court of
Appeal decision casts light on the historic rule that a company can only be represented in court proceedings by a...
This Court of
Appeal decision confirms that an employer does not have to take every possible step to establish whether an employee is disabled to avoid having constructive knowledge of disability.
In my jurisdiction, Washington D.C., a 2009 Court of
Appeals decision in In Re Mance held that flat fees paid to lawyers must be deposited into their trust account and held until the fee is earned.
As per the BBC, Man City
appealed the decision as they did not see his challenge as worthy of the punishment it received.
Cornie v. Security National Insurance Co., 2012 ONCA 837 (Ontario Court of
Appeal decision for FSCO «deemed failed mediations»)
However, that case — predating Clements is an Ontario Court of
Appeal decision which also seems to be based on the premise that Resurfice material contribution was Athey material contribution — that is, material contribution to injury.
Qu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is the leading Federal Court of
Appeal decision regarding what constitutes espionage under Canadian immigration legislation.
In contrast, the present
appeal decision provides an example of Parliament increasing sentences and the Court being responsive to those legislative changes.