| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
It is a recognized fact that the power of write-off is entirely at the discretion of the Commission, and that a decision made in exercising this discretionary power may only be reversed if the discretionary power has been exercised in a non-judicial way. However, Umpire found that the earlier case law on s. 60(2) cannot withstand the jurisprudential change of direction that has occurred in the Purcell (A-0694.94) and Morin (A-0453.95) cases. Since the decision in those cases, a new trend has emerged, namely to accord the BOR the power to have more control over the Commission’s discretionary decisions. Umpire therefore upheld the BOR’s decision, indicating that the BOR had the jurisdiction required to intervene in the Commission’s exercise of discretionary power under s. 60(2).**NOTE: The Commission is calling for a judicial review before the FCA, because the decision was in accordance with the Act and Regulations, and because the Commission’s position is supported by recent case law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
It is a recognized fact that the power of write-off is entirely at the discretion of the Commission, and that a decision made in exercising this discretionary power may only be reversed if the discretionary power has been exercised in a non-judicial way. However, Umpire found that the earlier case law on s. 60(2) cannot withstand the jurisprudential change of direction that has occurred in the Purcell (A-0694.94) and Morin (A-0453.95) cases. Since the decision in those cases, a new trend has emerged, namely to accord the BOR the power to have more control over the Commission’s discretionary decisions. Umpire therefore upheld the BOR’s decision, indicating that the BOR had the jurisdiction required to intervene in the Commission’s exercise of discretionary power under s. 60(2).**NOTE: The Commission is calling for a judicial review before the FCA, because the decision was in accordance with the Act and Regulations, and because the Commission’s position is supported by recent case law.
