Canada (Attorney General) v. Woods
The Umpire exceeded jurisdiction by attempting to address matters beyond calculation errors and by seeking to compel discretionary write‑off; because the Umpire found no denial of natural justice and no error in the Board's overpayment calculation, the Umpire's allowance of the appeal was set aside and the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 91
- Parties
- Applicant: The Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Michael R. Woods
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 March 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Application for Judicial Review of Umpire Decision (federal Court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the Umpire set aside; matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for determination that the claimant's appeal from the Board of Referees be dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Natural Justice, Overpayment Recovery, Abuse of Process, Remittal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Attorney General of Canada
Applicant
Michael R. Woods
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Judicial Review of Umpire Decision (federal Court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Umpire had jurisdiction to compel the Commission to write off an overpayment
- 2 Whether the Board or the Umpire could declare the Commission's refusal to write off an overpayment an abuse of process
- 3 Whether the Board erred in its calculation of the overpayment
Ratio Decidendi
The Umpire exceeded jurisdiction by attempting to address matters beyond calculation errors and by seeking to compel discretionary write‑off; because the Umpire found no denial of natural justice and no error in the Board's overpayment calculation, the Umpire's allowance of the appeal was set aside and the matter remitted for dismissal of the claimant's appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the Umpire set aside; matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for determination that the claimant's appeal from the Board of Referees be dismissed.
Orders
- Application for judicial review allowed.
- Decision of the Umpire set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Woods Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-03-04 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 91 File numbers A-417-01 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20020304 Docket: A-417-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 91 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and MICHAEL R. WOODS Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 4, 2002. Judgment delivered at from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 4, 2002. Date: 20020304 Docket: A-417-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 91 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and MICHAEL R. WOODS Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 4, 2002) STRAYER J.A. [1] The only issue the Umpire had jurisdiction to address was whether the Board had erred in its conclusions regarding the calculation of Mr. Woods' overpayment. Neither he nor the Board had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the Board nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process. [2] The Umpire did not find any error in the Board's conclusions that the claimant did not declare all of his earnings and that the Commission had correctly calculated the overpayment. He specifically found that there had been no denial of natural justice by the Board of Referees, the ground on which the claimant had appealed to the Umpire. Thus there was no basis for him to allow the appeal from the Board's decision. [3] The application for judicial review must be allowed, the decision of the Umpire set aside, and the matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for determination on the basis that the claimant's appeal from the decision of the Board of Referees should be dismissed. (Sgd.) "B.L. Strayer" J.A. Vancouver, British Columbia March 4, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-417-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: AGC v. Michael R. Woods PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC DATE OF HEARING: March 4, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : STRAYER J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A. DATED: March 4, 2002 APPEARANCES: Curtis Workun FOR THE APPLICANT Michael Woods FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE APPLICANT Michael Woods FOR THE RESPONDENT Dawson City, Yukon