ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

Receivability The Tribunal found that the second communication from the ABCC, not the first communication, constituted the notification of the contested decision since it clearly indicated that the ABCC reviewed the Applicant’s additional requests and rejected them. The Tribunal found that subsequent communications between the ABCC and the Applicant did not reset the statutory deadline as they were the reiteration of the contested decision. The application was timely filed and receivable. The claim of negligence was already adjudicated in the earlier judgment and therefore is not receivable as...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not derive negative consequences from the putative error in the EOD date.