| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $3,352 imposed on claimant (2nd offence). Penalty not out of proportion to the acts committed by the claimant and is not the maximum allowed by the Act. The Commission acted within the guidelines of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
In Morin FCA A-453-95, the Court stated that greater deference must be given to the Commission on its use of its power under the Act but that does not mean that the Umpire is unable to reduce a penalty. It simply means that the particular circumstances must truly warrant intervention.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Summary:
Claimant stated that when he arrived at the hearing the referees had made their decision already and that there was nothing for him to appeal. If true, comments unacceptable and may be a ground for sending case to new BOR as prejudgment is a gross breach of the principles of natural justice.
