Decision A-0549.99

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0549.99 McLean Peggy  Federal  English 2001-02-06
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Unanimous  No Commission  45255 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties  amount of penalty  mitigating circumstances 

Summary:

Penalty initially imposed at $3,345 but reduced by the Commission to $1,410 in light of the claimant's stress due to the breakup of her marriage and her financial difficulties. Umpire held that the penalty was based on a percentage formula which is not the exercise of a judicial discretion and further reduced the penalty to $750. Decision reversed by the FCA which ruled that the Commission had considered the particular circumstances of the applicant and that there was not an unreasonable exercise by the Commission of its discretionary power to impose a penalty.


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

Summary:

Penalty initially imposed at $3,345 but reduced by the Commission to $1,410 in light of the claimant's stress due to the breakup of her marriage and her financial difficulties. Umpire held that the penalty was based on a percentage formula which is not the exercise of a judicial discretion and further reduced the penalty to $750. Decision reversed by the FCA which ruled that the Commission had considered the particular circumstances of the applicant and that there was not an unreasonable exercise by the Commission of its discretionary power to impose a penalty.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires  errors in law  excess of jurisdiction 

Summary:

Penalty initially imposed at $3,345 but reduced by the Commission to $1,410 in light of the claimant's stress due to the breakup of her marriage and her financial difficulties. Umpire held that the penalty was based on a percentage formula which is not the exercise of a judicial discretion and further reduced the penalty to $750. Decision reversed by the FCA which ruled that the Commission had considered the particular circumstances of the applicant and that there was not an unreasonable exercise by the Commission of its discretionary power to impose a penalty.


Date modified: