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 22405 Full Text of Decision 22405

Claimant argues that s.26 (course referrals) discriminates against her in the context of infringing rights guaranteed by ss.15(1) of the Charter. There can be no question that the Board acted correctly in declining to entertain any charter argument per se. See TÉTREAULT-GADOURY.

Decision 17026A Full Text of Decision 17026A

As I understand the decision TETREAULT-GADOURY however, it is that Boards have jurisdiction to decide whether or not a claimant is entitled to benefits but not whether or not a particular provision of a statute is to be suspended for being in violation of s.15 of the Charter.

Decision 21007 Full Text of Decision 21007

The Board did not err in law by refusing to address the argument that the impugned statutory provisions regarding regional unemployment rates and statistical information violated claimant's guaranteed right of equality under s.15(1) of the Charter.

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 12543 Full Text of Decision 12543

Refer to: A-0521.86

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.