| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire’s decision to reduce the penalty from $3,553 to $850 was reversed by the FCA. The Court found that the Board of Referees had failed to exercise its jurisdiction fully in refusing to intervene in the Commission’s decision on the ground that only the Commission had the competence to intervene. The Umpire was ordered to refer the matter back to the BOR so that it could rule on the issue as to whether the amount of the penalty had not been determined by the Commission without taking some relevant considerations into account.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
commission policy |
|
Summary:
In order to authorize his intervention, the Umpire cited the existence of a policy of the Commission that allegedly had the effect of preventing the officer responsible from evaluating all the circumstances. The FCA first noted that this policy was not before it, and added that there was no reason to think that this policy was more constraining than several others whose aim is to guide, not to constrain, and whose object is to ensure a certain consistency in the decisions made by the host of public servants called upon to deal with particular cases on a daily basis. These are internal policies that the sound administration of a public agency not only allows, but requires.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
Summary:
In order to authorize his intervention, the Umpire cited the existence of a policy of the Commission that allegedly had the effect of preventing the officer responsible from evaluating all the circumstances. The FCA first noted that this policy was not before it, and added that there was no reason to think that this policy was more constraining than several others whose aim is to guide, not to constrain, and whose object is to ensure a certain consistency in the decisions made by the host of public servants called upon to deal with particular cases on a daily basis. These are internal policies that the sound administration of a public agency not only allows, but requires.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The FCA first noted that the Morin decision (A-453-95) had ended the controversy that had existed since the decision in Von Findenigg (A-737-82) concerning the power of the BOR and the Umpire to intervene and to exercise themselves the discretionary power conferred upon the Commission. The FCA went on to state that to verifiy the exercise of this discretionary power, the Board of Referees is not limited to the facts that were before the Commission, but may take into account facts of which the Board itself becomes aware. The Board must find that an essential consideration has been ignored, for it is not entitled to substitute its own discretion, purely and simply, for that of the Commission. In such a case, the Board may refer the matter back to the Commission or make a determination itself, if it deems itself able to do so legitimately.
