| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
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.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
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.
| 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.
