Summary of Issue

Decision A0483.09 Full Text of Decision A0483.09

The claimant had made false and misleading representations to the Commission. The Commission imposed a penalty and issued a notice of violation. The claimant's penalty was reduced to $1.00 and his notice of violation was set aside by the BOR. The Umpire decided that the issuance of notices of violations was automatic following a penalty and so the BOR had no jurisdiction to entertain such issue. The FCA ruled that the automatic issuance of notices of violations is not what the EIA provides for in s. 7.1(4), the Commission has a discretion to issue a notice of violation or not, depending on the circumstances. The exercise of this discretion can be appealed to the BOR.

Decision A0372.06 Full Text of Decision A0372.06

The Umpire said the claimant did make a false statement but reduced the penalty to a warning and decided that a notice of violation should not follow. The Court has said on many occasions that a Board or an Umpire's right to review a discretionary decision by the Commission is limited. The Court in this case after citing several past court decisions said that an Umpire would only be warranted in reducing the penalty if the Board failed to take new evidence into consideration and if the Board's mistake falls within the confines of subsection 115(2) of the Act. The Court also said that it is clear from subsection 7.1(4)(a) of the Act that a warning issued pursuant to section 41.1 of the Act is considered a penalty. Consequently, it concluded that the Umpire erred in law and exceeded his jurisdiction when he decided that a notice of violation should not be made.