Summary of Issue: Appeal

Decision 68638 Full Text of Decision 68638

The claimant's contests the denial of funding which is tantamount to saying that refusal to approve the application for referral is the underlying issue. Section 25 bars appeals from the Commission's refusal to approve referral and funding.

Decision 38850 Full Text of Decision 38850

By virtue of subsection 26(8), the decision of the Commission refusing to refer the claimant to the course or program that he was pursuing at the relevant time is not appealable.

Decision A-0372.96 Full Text of Decision A-0372.96

FCA found that the Commission’s decision as to whether or not to refer a claimant to a course covered by ss. 26(1) of the Act cannot be appealed under ss. 26(8). Consequently, neither the BOR, the Umpire, nor this Court has the jurisdiction to hear a challenge of the Commission’s decision on the grounds that the claimant was a victim of discrimination within the meaning of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He should have applied to another forum.

Decision 28274 Full Text of Decision 28274

The present appeal is dismissed on the ground that by virtue of ss. 26(8) of the Act, no decision referring or refusing to refer a claimant to a course or program mentioned in ss. 26(1) is subject to appeal under s. 79 or 80 of the Act.

Decision A-0576.94 Full Text of Decision A-0576.94

Because claimant had been given the wrong form by CEIC staff, he was referred to the course in 10-93 rather than 8-93. Held by Umpire that GRANGER is no authority to deny benefit in this case and that ss.26(8) does not prevent the Umpire from allowing the appeal. No reviewable error by Umpire.

Decision 25360 Full Text of Decision 25360

Refer to: A-0576.94

Decision 23396 Full Text of Decision 23396

Board exceeded its jurisdiction when it ruled on the Commission's decision not to refer the claimant to a course of study. Subsection 26(8) of the Act clearly indicates that this decision may not be appealed to the Board of Referees or to the Umpire. Claimant may challenge such a decision, either by filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Right Commission, or by instituting proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada in order to obtain a declaration that her rights as guaranteed by the Charter were violated.

Decision 22141 Full Text of Decision 22141

Ss.26(8) quoted. It follows from the foregoing that the decision of the Commission not to approve the course followed by the claimant is not subject to appeal to the Board of Referees nor to an Umpire.

Decision 20197 Full Text of Decision 20197

It is not unusual for Umpires to be faced with the genuine assertion that others in comparable circumstances have received benefits. However, the discretion to approve a claimant for feepayer status is entrusted to the Commission. Umpires cannot substitute their own discretion. I should add, however, that if the claimant feels that the Commission's approval of other claimants was unfair to him, he could pursue the matter by way of judicial review under s.18 of the Federal Court Act.

Decision 17390A Full Text of Decision 17390A

The Board erred in law when it held that the CEIC decision not to refer N.S. residents was wrong. It lacked the jurisdiction to make that determination, there being no proof of abuse of administrative discretion or bad faith by those officers authorizedto make that decision.

Decision 17578 Full Text of Decision 17578

The Umpire cannot alter the decision of the Commission to refuse a course referral.

Decision 16133 Full Text of Decision 16133

The Board erred in law by considering the claimant to have been referred to a course by CEIC. It cannot substitute itself to CEIC to exercise the Commission's sole discretion.

Decision 12670 Full Text of Decision 12670

The Board erred in law and in fact. It has no authority to designate a course as an approved one under ss.26(1).

Decision 11559 Full Text of Decision 11559

Here, conditional or not, the referral was refused. However, claimant continued to receive benefits. An Umpire cannot alter the judgment call of the Commission not to approve the referral.

Decision 11074 Full Text of Decision 11074

As to whether claimant should have been referred, the Commission never made any decision. While there may be some question as to whether such decision could be appealed, none was taken and no decision to appeal.