Date: 19980513
Docket: A-823-97
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 13th DAY OF MAY 1998
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
JACQUES LAUZON
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 him with instructions to dismiss the claimant"s appeal from the Board of Referees" decision dated November 8, 1994.
Pierre Denault
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Docket: A-823-97
CORAM: DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
JACQUES LAUZON
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal on Wednesday, May 13, 1998
Judgment delivered at Montréal on Wednesday, May 13, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DENAULT J.A.
Date: 19980513
Docket: A-823-97
CORAM: DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
JACQUES LAUZON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal on
Wednesday, May 13, 1998)
DENAULT J.A.
[1] We are of the view that the application for judicial review should be allowed.
[2] In the case at bar, the Umpire considered the Board of Referees" decision to be merely a statement that the Commission"s decision on the penalty should be upheld. He accordingly stated that it was in his view impossible under the circumstances to determine whether the Commission had exercised its discretion judiciously in setting the amount of the penalty imposed on the claimant.
[3] In so doing, the Umpire disregarded the fact that the Board of Referees had determined that the penalties sought in respect of five of the weeks for which the Commission claimed a penalty were time-barred. The Board of Referees dealt with the other penalties sought by observing that the claimant [TRANSLATION] "admitted to making a mistake" and stated [TRANSLATION] "that he did not think it would be that serious". The Board of Referees also considered that [TRANSLATION] "the language used on the face and the reverse of the return [was] simple, lucid and clear". In short, the Board of Referees seems to have examined both the first issue, which was no longer before the Umpire, of false or misleading statements and the mitigating factors relating to the penalty.
[4] The Court infers from the Board of Referees" very brief, but adequate, analysis that it verified both the exercise of the Commission"s discretion and the appropriateness of reducing the penalty.
[5] In so far as the Umpire made his decision without regard for all the material before him, the application for judicial review must be allowed.
Pierre Denault
J.A.
MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC
May 13, 1998
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980513
Docket: A-823-97
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND:
JACQUES LAUZON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-823-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
JACQUES LAUZON
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 13, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT, THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Denault
Dated: May 13, 1998
APPEARANCE:
Carole Bureau for the applicant
SOLICITOR OF RECORD:
George Thomson for the applicant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content