UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Pyne
A-378-98
Stone J.A.
15/12/99
4 pp.
Judicial review of Umpire's decision reducing penalty imposed by Commission pursuant to Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 33, and allowing reduced penalty to be repaid by way of monthly installments--Board of Referees finding not sufficient evidence to overcome general presumption statements knowingly made falsely--Umpire holding extenuating circumstances i.e. respondent's serious health problems, for reducing penalty--Application allowed--Board of Referees, Umpire having jurisdiction to exercise discretion Commission exercised in judicially incorrect manner i.e. on basis of irrelevant considerations or without regard for all relevant considerations: Canada (Attorney General) v. Dunham, [1997] 1 F.C. 462 (C.A.)--As no evidence Commission aware of claimed extenuating circumstance, discretionary decision imposing amount of penalty not made on basis of irrelevant considerations, or without regard for all relevant considerations, or in judicially incorrect manner--Umpire not having jurisdiction to reduce penalty or to allow respondent to repay penalty by way of monthly installments--Act not conferring such power on Umpire--Matter of arrangements for repayment of penalty clearly left for Commission to make with claimant--Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, s. 33 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 40, s. 25).