CHAPTER 1
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AND TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS
1.1 General Characteristics of Administrative Proceedings
1.1.1 The Board is a Tribunal
1.1.1.6 Rehearing or Self-Review
In principle in our law, when a tribunal has rendered a decision, it no longer has responsibility for the case; it is functus officio and may accordingly no longer have anything to do with the decision, with a few exceptions. First, this may be explicitly permitted under the Act, as is the case in A. 120. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled that although the Act does not permit this, an administrative tribunal may reopen a case in the interests of justice, hold a regular hearing if it realizes that it has made an error that has the effect of nullifying its decision, or if it failed to rule on a question.84 However, this does not have to involve a kind of relief "which would otherwise be available on appeal".85 Since the appeal to the Umpire provided for in s. 115 clearly covers these cases, A. 120 should be strictly followed in this regard.
The case law also recognizes that an administrative tribunal can always correct material errors or errors that are the result of a lapse or an accidental omission.86
Finally, s. A. 117 provides for a new hearing when this is requested by the Umpire, and the hearing shall be held in accordance with such directions as the Umpire considers appropriate. Strictly speaking, this is not a review or a rehearing but rather a new hearing that may be required before the same Board of Referees or a different board in accordance with the Umpire's directions.
In what cases will a rehearing be held under s. A. 120? These are situations where:
- new facts are presented;
- it is alleged that the decision was rendered before a material fact became known; or
- it is alleged that the decision was based on an error concerning a material fact.
We shall come back to this point later in Chapter 5.
[ previous | table of contents | next ]