Decision A-0417.01
Full Text of Decision A-0417.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51479
Full Text of Decision 51479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0417.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0874.97
Full Text of Decision A-0874.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had rightly refused to write off the debt and the Umpire erred in not cancelling the BOR's decision in this respect. The debtor should have proceeded by requesting a judicial review before the Trial Division of the FCA and not by appealing to the Umpire. Obviously the Commission must record its decision and convey it to the person concerned.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0639.97
Full Text of Decision A-0639.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $5,200.00 imposed at the rate of 200% for making 20 false statements. Possibility of reducing the amount not considered by BOR (position dating from before Morin, A-453-95). Situation recognized by the Umpire who, even in light of the Morin decision, found that a reduction in the penalty was not justified in this case. FCA refused to intervene, ruling that it was satisfied the Umpire had taken into consideration all the aggravating and extenuating circumstances that appear in the file.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 39197
Full Text of Decision 39197
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0926.96
Full Text of Decision A-0926.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Claimant reported that he had not worked on his own account and that he had no connection to the employer, whereas he owned 25% of the employer’s shares. Umpire upheld the Board of Referees’ decision which found that the claimant was not credible and had made a false statement. FCA found that the claimant failed to show that the BOR and the Umpire came to an unreasonable decision in ratifying the 300% penalty imposed. It added that the BOR and Umpire are authorized to intervene only if it is shown that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner. This was not shown.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0681.96
Full Text of Decision A-0681.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Penalty reduced from $1,690 to $845 by the Umpire. The FCA found that it would have been desirable for the Umpire to rule clearly, in the first place, on the legality of the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission before determining the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court inferred from the Umpire’s two decisions that he had carried out this step and had thus not erred in reducing the penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0701.96
Full Text of Decision A-0701.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The BOR recognized some mitigating factors (penalty greater than the penalty amount imposed on the respondent's employer and claimant's financial hardship) but did not reduce the amount of penalty because it believed it lacked authority to do so. Amount reduced by Umpire. The FCA held that there was no "decision or order" made by the BOR that could be reviewed by the Umpire. The Court, referring to its previous decisions in Morin (A-453-95), Dunham (A-708-95) and Mucciarone (A-464-96), allowed the Commission's appeal and ordered that the case be remitted back to the BOR for determination of the amount of penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0464.96
Full Text of Decision A-0464.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $4,536 was reduced to $18 by the Board of Referees, which cited the claimant’s precarious financial position. This decision was reversed by the Umpire, who found that the BOR had no jurisdiction to vary the amount of the penalty. This decision was set aside by the FCA, which referred the matter back to the Umpire for him to determine whether, given the claimant’s financial position, the BOR had judicially exercised its discretionary power in cancelling, for all practical purposes, the penalty imposed by the Commission. The FCA reminded the Umpire that a BOR should not cancel a penalty or reduce it to a token amount unless the circumstances are exceptional. **NOTE: In a subsequent decision (CUB 33564A), the Umpire took into consideration certain extenuating circumstances that had not been present initially, and reduced the penalty by half (from $4,536 to $2.268). This decision was not deemed to be unreasonable by the Commission, and no appeal was made to the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision T-2369.95
Full Text of Decision T-2369.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Claimant's appeal as to her disqualification for misconduct allowed. Twice the employer requested a new hearing which was granted by the BOR. Claimant filed an application for a writ of prohibition to stop the third hearing. The FCA recognized the BOR' jurisdiction to reopen the hearing but found that the employer had been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The FCA found however that in the particular circumstances of the case, such an excess of litigation was unreasonable and imposed hardship upon the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
Decision A-0708.95
Full Text of Decision A-0708.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The FCA first noted that the Morin decision (A-453-95) had ended the controversy that had existed since the decision in Von Findenigg (A-737-82) concerning the power of the BOR and the Umpire to intervene and to exercise themselves the discretionary power conferred upon the Commission. The FCA went on to state that to verifiy the exercise of this discretionary power, the Board of Referees is not limited to the facts that were before the Commission, but may take into account facts of which the Board itself becomes aware. The Board must find that an essential consideration has been ignored, for it is not entitled to substitute its own discretion, purely and simply, for that of the Commission. In such a case, the Board may refer the matter back to the Commission or make a determination itself, if it deems itself able to do so legitimately.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 34820
Full Text of Decision 34820
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 28068A
Full Text of Decision 28068A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0681.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0600.95
Full Text of Decision A-0600.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Late appeal (4 months). In the absence of an explanation as to how the Commission had not exercised its discretion in a judicial manner under subsection 79(1) of the Act, the Board of Referees could not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission. The Umpire therefore erred in not concluding that the Board of Referees had been wrong to substitute its discretion for that of the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0453.95
Full Text of Decision A-0453.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
To maintain that the Umpire's authority to give the decision that should have been given is withdrawn when the decision under attack is a discretionary one would be inconsistent with the Act and with Parliament's intent. Matter referred back to an Umpire for redetermination with the assumption that he has jurisdiction to change the amount of the penalty imposed if he concludes that the Commission did not exercise its discretion in a judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 22558A
Full Text of Decision 22558A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0448.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0448.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The Umpire has taken it upon himself to simply proceed to a new evaluation of the facts and to grant the extension without first addressing the question of whether there was any indication that the Commission did not act judicially. Nothing on file to this effect. Commission's appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision 25953
Full Text of Decision 25953
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0694.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Decision A-0694.94
Full Text of Decision A-0694.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Whether the phrase "in its opinion" has the effect of insulating the Commission's decision to impose a penalty from the review by the BOR. Held that BOR possesses the requisite jurisdiction to formulate its own opinion with respect to a false or misleading statement.
The BOR is empowered to engage in a de novo review with respect to factual matters and is in a better position to make objective findings of fact. It is the BOR which functions as a quasi-judicial body not the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Decision 29211
Full Text of Decision 29211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0708.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 24929
Full Text of Decision 24929
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0464.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision A-0464.94
Full Text of Decision A-0464.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
At issue: the power to reduce length of disqualification. In the rare case where a Commission decision can be set aside for fundamental error, the Umpire or Board of Referees is limited to referring the matter back to the Commission for a proper exercise of its discretion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision A-0308.94
Full Text of Decision A-0308.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence establishes clearly that neither a Board nor an Umpire may exercise the discretionary powers conferred on the CEIC. Such a decision cannot be overturned unless vitiated by a fundamental error. There is no reason not to apply this to a decision fixing the length of a disqualification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 22558
Full Text of Decision 22558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0346.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-0346.93
Full Text of Decision A-0346.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The matter will be referred back to the Umpire on the basis that the question whether or not the Commission exercised its discretion judicially in refusing the extension must be decided by the Umpire before he decides whether or not to order the appeal to be heard on its merits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Decision A-1449.92
Full Text of Decision A-1449.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in finding that the reduced rate should have terminated on 31-8-91. Ss. 30(7) confers a discretion on the Commission. The Umpire is not allowed to exercise a discretion that the legislation explicitly confers on the Commission itself.
Once the Umpire decided that the ss. 30(7) discretion had not been exercised at all, he ought to have referred the matter back to the Board with directions that the Board should remit the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration on the basis that it exercise its discretion under ss. 30(7).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Decision 21688
Full Text of Decision 21688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1449.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Decision T-1765.89
Full Text of Decision T-1765.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The exercise of discretionary power can be reviewed only if the deciding authority acted without or beyond its jurisdiction, violated procedural fairness, or acted in a discriminatory, unreasonable or perverse manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
change in jurisprudence |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
claimant's request |
reconsideration of claim by Commission |
Decision 10633
Full Text of Decision 10633
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Various judgments examined for a proper interpretation of the words "in the opinion of" a deciding authority. Note: this case, HARBOUR, was reviewed by the Federal Court who disagreed with the reasoning but agreed with the result.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
claim required |
|
|
| basic concepts |
eligibility to benefits |
|
|
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| claim procedure |
discretionary power waiver or variation of requirements |
|
|
