A-681-96
| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, |
| Judgment delivered at Montréal |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DENAULT J.A. |
A-681-96
CORAM: HUGESSEN J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
MacGUIGAN J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant,
AND:
LINE MORIN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal
on Tuesday, May 27, 1997)
DENAULT J.A.
In an initial judgment on the facts of this case (A-453-95), this Court clearly stated that an umpire is entitled to vary the amount of a penalty "if he or she concludes that the Commission did not exercise its discretion judicially".
According to the Commission"s own policy, mitigating factors must be taken into account in exercising its discretion as to the penalty to impose on a claimant. For the Commission"s purposes, those factors are defined in the Insurance Services Policy Manual:
Mitigating Factors
Mitigating circumstances are those which lessen the seriousness of the offence due to unusual or out of the ordinary events existing at the time of the offence. Such circumstances will warrant a penalty lower than that which would be imposed for the basic act of making false statements.
Circonstances atténuantes
Les circonstances atténuantes sont celles qui réduisent la gravité d'une infraction parce que celle-ci a été commise dans une situation inhabituelle ou hors de l'ordinaire. Dans de telles circonstances, la pénalité sera moindre que s'il y avait simplement eu fausse déclaration.
We have no hesitation in stating that, in so far as the Commission followed this policy in the case at bar, it unduly limited its discretion. All factors existing before or at the time a penalty is imposed that may affect its appropriateness are relevant to determining its amount.
In the instant case, the Umpire, in an initial decision on March 24, 1995, criticized the Commission for merely using a mathematical formula to determine the penalty " in short, for not properly exercising its discretion.
It would no doubt have been better if the Umpire had clearly ruled on the legality of the Commission"s exercise of discretion before ruling on the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court infers from the Umpire"s two decisions that he considered both the legality of the exercise of discretion and the appropriateness of reducing the penalty. He therefore did not err in reducing the penalty.
The application will be dismissed.
Pierre Denault
J.A.
Certified true translation
A. Poirier
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
A-681-96
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant,
AND:
LINE MORIN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-681-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant,
AND:
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONOURABLE HUGESSEN, DENAULT AND MacGUIGAN JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: the Honourable Mr. Justice Denault
Dated: May 27, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Francisco Couto
Pauline Leroux for the Applicant
William de Merchant for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the Applicant
Campeau, Ouellet, Nadon,
Barabé, Cyr, Rainville, de Merchant,
Bernstein & Cousineau
Montréal, Quebec for the Respondent
A-681-96
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 1997.
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MacGUIGAN
BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant,
AND:
LINE MORIN,
Respondent.
J U D G M E N T
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
James K. Hugessen
J.A.
Certified true translation
A. Poirier
Email this Content