Canada (Attorney General) v. Benitez
The Court found that the invocation of new facts before the Umpire, together with the authority in section 120 to rescind the Board of Referees' decision (including the penalty), distinguished the case from Gauley and justified dismissal of the application for judicial review.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2003 FCA 181
- Parties
- Applicant: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondent: RICARDO BENITEZ
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review – Administrative Law / Appeal (federal Court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Rescission of Tribunal Decision, New Evidence Before Tribunal, Section 120
- 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
RICARDO BENITEZ
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review – Administrative Law / Appeal (federal Court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether new facts invoked before the Umpire distinguished this case from Canada (A.G.) v. Gauley
- 2 Whether section 120 authorized the Umpire to rescind the decision of the Board of Referees and the penalty
- 3 Whether the Umpire's decision was subject to judicial review and should be set aside
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the invocation of new facts before the Umpire, together with the authority in section 120 to rescind the Board of Referees' decision (including the penalty), distinguished the case from Gauley and justified dismissal of the application for judicial review.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed
- No award of costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Benitez Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-04-07 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 181 File numbers A-148-02 Decision Content Date: 20030408 Docket: A-148-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 181 CORAM: STONE J.A. NOËL J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant - and - RICARDO BENITEZ Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, April 7, 2003. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, April 7, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. Date: 20030408 Docket: A-148-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 181 CORAM: STONE J.A. NOËL J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant - and - RICARDO BENITEZ Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, April 7, 2003.) NOËL J.A. [1] We agree with the Respondent that this case can be distinguished from the decision of this Court in Canada (A.G.) v. Gauley 2002 F.C.A. 219 by virtue of the invocation of new facts before the Umpire. Section 120 which was not in issue in Gauley allowed the Umpire to rescind the decision of the Board of Referees in such circumstances, which must include the power to rescind the penalty. [2] Accordingly, the application for Judicial review will be dismissed. I would make no award as to costs as none were sought. "Marc Noël" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-148-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant - and - RICARDO BENITEZ Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL JA DATED: TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003 DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON APRIL 7, 2003. APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Derek Edwards For the Applicant Mr. Ronald Poulton For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg The Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Applicant Mr. Ronald Poulton 2141 Jane Street, 2nd floor Toronto, Ontario M3M 1A2 For the Respondent