Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     A-769-96

CORAM:      DENAULT, J.A.

         DÉCARY, J.A.

         ROBERTSON, J.A.

B E T W E E N:

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Applicant

     -and-

     ANTOINETTE M. LONGSWORTH (NEE WALLIS)

     Respondent

HEARD at Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, September 23, 1997.

JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, September 23, 1997.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:              DENAULT, J.A.

    

     A-769-96

CORAM:      DENAULT, J.A.

         DÉCARY, J.A.

         ROBERTSON, J.A.

B E T W E E N:

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Applicant

     -and-

     ANTOINETTE M. LONGSWORTH (NEE WALLIS)

     Respondent

    

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     (Delivered from the Bench, at Toronto, Ontario,

     Tuesday, the 23rd day of September, 1997)

DENAULT, J.A.:

     This is an application for an order to set aside the decision of an Umpire who dismissed the Respondent's appeal from a decision of the Board of Referees but rescinded the penalty imposed upon the Respondent, in the following words:

         "The Board made no reversible error under Section 80 of the Act. However, in this case, applying the Morin Judgment, I find that the penalty should be rescinded."         

     We are all of the respectful view that by deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment,the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin1 case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. In the instance, not only did the Umpire neglect to indicate any factor the Commission ought to have considered when it imposed the penalty, but he specifically found that the Board had made no reversible error. In fact, he merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the Board of Referees. That he could not do2.

     The judicial review application will be allowed, the decision of the Umpire dated August 2, 1996 with respect to rescinding the penalty set aside, and the matter will be referred back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for reconsideration on the basis that the Board of Referees' decision ought to be restored with respect to the penalty.

"P. Denault"

                             J.A.

         FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      A-769-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:              THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                         OF CANADA         

                         - and -

                         ANTOINETTE M. LONGSWORTH      (NEE WALLIS)

            

DATE OF HEARING:              SEPTEMBER 23, 1997

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      DENAULT, J.A.

Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

on Tuesday, September 23, 1997

APPEARANCES:

                         Mr. Robert H. Jaworski

                             For the Applicant

                         Ms. Antoinette M. Longsworth

                             For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                    

                         George Thomson

                         Deputy Attorney General

                         of Canada

                             For the Applicant

                         Ms. Antoinette M. Longsworth

                         1684 Autumn Crescent

                         Pickering, Ontario

                         L1V 6X5

                             For the Respondent

                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                     Court No.: A-769-96

                     Between:

                     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Applicant

                     - and -

                     ANTOINETTE M. LONGSWORTH

                     (NEE WALLIS)

                    

     Respondent

                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


__________________

     1      Morin v. C.E.I.C., 134 D.L.R. (4th) 724 (F.C.A.)

     2      Roberts et al. v. C.E.I.C. (1985), 60 N.R. 349

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.