Summary of Issue: Levels

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 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. The usual procedure for objecting to decisions of the Commission is, first, an appeal to the Board, then to an Umpire and then to the Federal Court of Appeal, or directly from the Board to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Decision A-0848.76 Full Text of Decision A-0848.76

Appeal to FCA from the Board of Referees’ decision. CEIC alleged that the appeal was premature since the avenues of recourse set out in the E.I. Act had not been exhausted. This may seem abnormal, but the recourse exists as soon as an appeal is made to the FCA.

Decision T-0273.74 Full Text of Decision T-0273.74

A request to have a Board's decision set aside cannot be brought under s.18 before the Trial Division but under s.28 before the Appeal Division of the Federal Court.