| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Penalty reduced from $1,690 to $845 by the Umpire. The FCA found that it would have been desirable for the Umpire to rule clearly, in the first place, on the legality of the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission before determining the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court inferred from the Umpire’s two decisions that he had carried out this step and had thus not erred in reducing the penalty.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
Summary:
The Court, relying on the definition of extenuating circumstances given in a manual of the Commission [topic 21 of the Insurance Services Policy Manual, in lieu of chapter 18 of the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles], ruled that the Commission had unduly limited its discretionary power. The FCA further stated that all factors existing prior to or at the time of the imposition of a penalty and of a nature to affect the rightness of the penalty are relevant to the establishment of it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire acknowledged certain extenuating circumstances on the record, namely the claimant’s health status and more particularly her memory losses caused by the morphine medication, and reduced the penalty from $1,690 to $845. The FCA found that it would have been desirable for the Umpire to rule clearly, in the first place, on the legality of the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission before determining the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court inferred from the Umpire’s two decisions that he had carried out this step and had thus not erred in reducing the penalty.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
commission policy |
|
Summary:
The Court, relying on the definition of extenuating circumstances given in a manual of the Commission [topic 21 of the Insurance Services Policy Manual, in lieu of chapter 18 of the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles], ruled that the Commission had unduly limited its discretionary power. The FCA further stated that all factors existing prior to or at the time of the imposition of a penalty and of a nature to affect the rightness of the penalty are relevant to the establishment of it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Umpire acknowledged certain extenuating circumstances on the record, namely the claimant’s health status and more particularly her memory losses caused by the morphine medication, and reduced the penalty from $1,690 to $845. The FCA found that it would have been desirable for the Umpire to rule clearly, in the first place, on the legality of the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission before determining the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court inferred from the Umpire’s two decisions that he had carried out this step and had thus not erred in reducing the penalty.
