Summary of Issue: Charter

Decision 52792 Full Text of Decision 52792

Claimant entitled to a maximum of 10 weeks of parental benefits and not the 35 weeks set out in Bill C-32. She appeals on the grounds that the specific provision infringes her right to equality as guaranteed by the Charter. Relying on the FCA decision in Nishri (A-0216.96), the umpire held that the cut-off date of Dec. 31, 2000 was simply a criteria selected by Parliament for determining whether a claimant will be governed by the old rules or the new rules and that it was not based on any personal characteristic of the claimant. Appeal 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 2122291 Full Text of Decision 2122291

The particular UI legislative scheme contemplates that constitutional questions be more appropriately presented to the Umpire, on appeal, rather than to the Board itself. The Board did not have jurisdiction to rule that s. 31 (severance benefit) violated the Charter.

Decision 15180 Full Text of Decision 15180

His powers sitting as an Umpire are merely as the ZWARICH case decided to find whether the sections of the legislation impugned as being contrary to Charter are of no force and effect, but not to pronounce a declaration as to constitutional validity of the statute.

Decision A-0521.86 Full Text of Decision A-0521.86

It is clear that neither a Board nor an Umpire have the right to pronounce declarations as to the constitutional validity of statutes and regulations. That is a privilege reserved to the superior courts.

Decision 12543 Full Text of Decision 12543

Refer to: A-0521.86

Decision A0351.08 Full Text of Decision A0351.08

The FCA found that contrary to the Umpire's findings, there was no evidence on record suggesting that a concession had been made by the Commission to the effect that the income from 2002 and 2003 was not subject to allocations since the service had been performed before 2002. As such, the FCA found that the Umpire's conclusion in that regard was a breach of the rules of procedural fairness within the meaning of section 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act.

Decision 26723 Full Text of Decision 26723

In the absence of compliance with the appropriate section of the Federal Court Act, I will not entertain the application to the effect that, pursuant to s. 15 of the Charter, the provisions of s. 13 and 36 of the Act offend the constitutional rights of the claimant.

Decision 22459A Full Text of Decision 22459A

Procedures presented in detail with regard to the possibility of challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act.