Date: 19981030
Docket: A-95-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER 1998
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
HARDIP SINGH BADWAL
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The application for judicial review is allowed, the Umpire"s decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire designated by him for redetermination on the basis that the claimant"s appeal should have been dismissed.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19981030
Docket: A-96-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER 1998
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
HARDIP SINGH BADWAL
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The application for judicial review is allowed, the Umpire"s decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire designated by him for redetermination on the basis that the claimant"s appeal should have been dismissed.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19981030
Docket: A-95-98, A-96-98
Coram: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CHEVALIER D.J.
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
HARDIP SINGH BADWAL
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Friday, October 30, 1998.
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec on Friday, October 30, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19981030
Docket: A-95-98, A-96-98
Coram: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CHEVALIER D.J.
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
HARDIP SINGH BADWAL
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] These two applications for judicial review must be allowed.
[2] In a decision the real scope of which is unknown to us because he simply concluded that the case had become [TRANSLATION] "purely academic", the Umpire seems to have found in favour of the claimant on one ground -- the lack of notification of the amount of the overpayment -- which was not pleaded before the Board of Referees. Otherwise, he would have dismissed the claimant"s appeals.
[3] This Court has held for some time now that the Umpire could not be seized of this argument if it was not raised before the Board of Referees. It is true that in its submissions to the Board of Referees, the Commission admitted that the amount of the overpayment had not yet been calculated. It is unclear, however, whether the Commission would not have taken the necessary steps to make the calculation immediately and notify the claimant of the amount, if it had known that the argument of the lack of a calculation would be raised, thus countering the claimant"s argument on this issue before the Board of Referees.
[4] The applications for judicial review will be allowed, the Umpire"s decision will be set aside and the matters referred back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire designated by him for redetermination on the basis that the claimant"s appeals should have been dismissed.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 19981030
Docket: A-95-98, A-96-98
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
HARDIP SINGH BADWAL
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-95-98, A-96-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND:
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 30, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU AND THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Décary
Dated: October 30, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Paul Deschênes for the applicant
Gilbert Nadon for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada for the applicant
Campeau, Ouellet, Nadon, Barabé, Cyr
Rainville, De Merchant, Bernstein
& Cousineau
Montréal, Quebec for the respondent