Summary of Issue: Rationale

Decision 24186 Full Text of Decision 24186

I have been troubled by the provisions of ss. 79(1). It seems very unusual that one party to a proceeding or an appeal is given the jurisdiction to extend time. That jurisdiction seems to have been left to the Commission solely. No rationale for such an unusual feature was argued before me. If this restrictive and one-sided interpretation of ss. 79(1) is correct, an issue of natural justice arises. It may be that Parliament intended, for a good and valid purpose, to create a one-sided provision in the legislation in respect of extensions. But if it did so, its reason is not obvious.

Decision A-0159.89 Full Text of Decision A-0159.89

Delay of 2 months. Time limitations for appeals must be respected for sound administration of the Act. Appeal procedures are simple. Contacting his MP and not obtaining desired results is not a reason for extension of time. Upheld by FC without comment.

Decision 16334 Full Text of Decision 16334

Refer to: A-0159.89

Decision 16561 Full Text of Decision 16561

Natural justice does not require that long-delayed appeals must be heard, or there would be no point in having provisions for time to make appeals in the Act, or for that matter in any other statute.

Decision 16241 Full Text of Decision 16241

I agree with CUB 16160 that Umpires have a tendency to allow an out of date appeal without special reasons because all parties are present but I do not believe this to be sufficient. Parliament included s.82 for a reason. If not enforced, the whole purpose becomes meaningless.