Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
FCA reiterates its position that as long as the Commission exercises its discretionary power judicially, that is to say by taking into account all relevant considerations and without being influenced by any improper ones, neither the BOR, the umpire nor this Court, is entitled to interfere.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
FCA reiterates its position that as long as the Commission exercises its discretionary power judicially, that is to say by taking into account all relevant considerations and without being influenced by any improper ones, neither the BOR, the umpire nor this Court, is entitled to interfere.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
penalties |
commission policy |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.