Summary of Issue: Jurisdiction

Decision T-2279.00 Full Text of Decision T-2279.00

This case involved the exchange of information between Customs and HRDC. The Court having decided (T-864-98) that such an exchange was not permitted under the Privacy Act, the claimant asked to have the amount of overpayment and penalty that he had already paid returned, along with damages. The Court declared that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the action for damages because of the exclusive appeal mechanism provided by the Act to challenge the Commission's decisions, namely appealing to the Board of Referees, then the Umpire and finally requesting a judicial review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. Claimant's motion dismissed.

Decision A-0216.96 Full Text of Decision A-0216.96

Claimant had a child on 5-09-90 (prior to the coming into force of Bill C-21 on 18-11-90). She received maternity benefits but was not eligible to parental benefits. The BOR dismissed the appeal: no jurisdiction to consider a Charter issue and so did the Umpire. The FCA held that Umpire failed to deal with the constitutional issue. The Umpire must find that a particular section of the Act contravenes the Charter and that it cannot be saved by Section1. The Court agreed however that Umpires cannot issue declarations of invalidity pursuant to SS.24(1) of the Constitutional Act. Such remedies are reserved to superior courts. Case returned for redetermination on the constitutional issues.

Decision T-1636.96 Full Text of Decision T-1636.96

FCA maintained that the evidence before the Tax Court of Canada could not be accepted as evidence before the FCA. To support this suit for damages, the same evidence would have to be produced again if it were deemed to be useful.

Decision 2122291 Full Text of Decision 2122291

Refusal by the Board to consider the constitutional arguments. Appeal brought before the Federal Court instead of the Umpire. Question legally submitted to the Court, but it does not have the jurisdiction here to settle the issue definitively. That came under the Umpire.

Decision 14001 Full Text of Decision 14001

Refer to: A-0715.87

Decision A-0715.87 Full Text of Decision A-0715.87

The powers of this Court under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act are not as comprehensive as those of an Umpire under s. 81 of the UI Act. We cannot decide necessary questions of fact.

Decision A0222.08 Full Text of Decision A0222.08

The decision under judicial review is that of an Umpire who dismissed an application brought by the claimant pursuant to section 120 of the EIA, seekink reconsideration of a previous and similar reconsideration decision of another Umpire. The FCA confirmed that absent special circumstances it will not use a judicial review of the reconsideration decision as a vehicle to attack collaterally the original decision. Application for judicial review dismissed.

Decision 06-A-50

The claimant asked that the Court reconsider an earlier order denying his application of an extension of time to commence a judicial review application. Rule 397 of the Federal Court Rules gives the Court jurisdiction to correct post facto any inadvertent mistake which is shown to have occurred in a decision. It is apparent from the material filed by the claimant that he does not point to any such error or omission but that he seeks to re-argue his case albeit more comprehensively. The Court is without jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier decision on that basis. See this address for the Court's decision: http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2007/2007fca29/2007fca29.html