Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Contrôle judiciaire de refus de demandes CH rejeté : la Cour fédérale conclut que l’agent a raisonnablement examiné l’unité familiale et l’intérêt des enfants.
The Commission lawfully exercised its discretion by refusing the extension because the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for a delay of over four years, evidence showed he remained in Alberta and received notice, he did not demonstrate a continuing intention to request reconsideration, and an extension would not have given the appeal a reasonable chance of success; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the Federal Court correctly applied the general rule of remittal under Vavilov: given the broad discretionary power conferred on the Minister by s.64(1) and the record, the matter did not admit a single reasonable outcome and therefore the court should not substitute its own decision but remit the matter to the Minister for redetermination; additionally s.64(1) establishes a distinct compensation regime displacing common law expropriation and absence of regulations does not prevent the Minister from exercising discretion.
Source excerpt
Although the Commission failed to exercise its discretion judicially (it relied on 'new' information that it already possessed and delayed nearly seven months), the payments at issue were calculated from an ROE that was manifestly incorrect and therefore were paid contrary to the statutory structure of the EI Act; that factor outweighs others and required the claim to be reopened, corrected weekly rate set at $395 and maximum weeks at 24, producing an overpayment of $10,670.00.
Source excerpt
The General Division erred by failing to apply binding Federal Court of Appeal precedent and by not analyzing whether the Commission exercised its section 52 discretion judicially; because neither party provided evidence or submissions on that issue, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the General Division for reconsideration with directions to address the judicial exercise of discretion test.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Temporary Resident Permit refusal, finding the officer reasonably engaged with the applicant’s circumstances and applied the correct standard.
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal Division’s interpretation that s.153.161 permits the Commission to make an initial entitlement decision based on claimant statements but to verify entitlement after benefits are paid; that verification under s.153.161(2), read with s.52, authorizes the Commission to reassess entitlement and recover overpayments without requiring new information; that the Commission’s internal reconsideration policy does not govern post-payment verifications under s.153.161 after December 15, 2020; and that the Appeal Division reasonably concluded the Commission ex…
Source excerpt
The reconsideration request was submitted late beyond the 30-day limit; although the Commission did not exercise its discretion judicially because it failed to consider the Appellant's ADD and the role of his agent, after assuming the Commission's role the Tribunal found neither a reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay nor a continuing intention to seek reconsideration and therefore denied an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.
Source excerpt
The Commission failed to apply its own reconsideration policy and did not exercise its discretion judicially by ignoring relevant factors; therefore the Tribunal substituted its decision that the claim should not have been reconsidered, the appellant is not retroactively disqualified for May 22 to December 11, 2022, and no repayment is required.
Source excerpt
The Commission validly exercised its discretionary power to verify and retroactively disentitle the claimant; the claimant rebutted the presumption of non-availability with prior part-time work while studying but failed to prove active availability because he did not make sufficient, documented job-search efforts and imposed personal conditions that unduly limited his job prospects, therefore he is disentitled and must repay benefits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
