2 total
The Court of Appeal held that judicial recourse to challenge Independent Assessment Process decisions is strictly limited to very exceptional circumstances.
The respondent M.F. made a claim under the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), alleging sexual abuse by a priest at a residential school.
The adjudicator found the abuse occurred but rejected the claim on the basis that M.F. did not meet the test for a non-resident/non-student claimant, as the school had closed before the alleged abuse.
The review and re-review adjudicators affirmed this decision.
M.F. brought a request for directions before an administrative judge, who undertook a full review of the IAP decisions and awarded compensation.
The Court of Appeal allowed Canada's appeal, finding that the administrative judge exceeded his jurisdiction by failing to apply the strict limits on judicial recourse established in Schachter v. Canada.
The court clarified that judicial intervention in IAP decisions is limited to very exceptional circumstances where the decision fails to enforce the IRSSA or apply the IAP model.
The matter was remitted to the chief adjudicator for reconsideration in light of newly discovered documents.
Court corrects IAP adjudicators' errors and assumes jurisdiction to quantify residential school survivor's compensation.
The claimant brought a Request for Direction under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement after his claim for compensation for sexual assault was dismissed by an Adjudicator and upheld on Review and Re-Review.
The Adjudicator had relied on extra-curial knowledge to infer that the assault occurred after the school closed.
The court found that the Re-Review Adjudicator failed to apply the IAP Model by not correcting the Adjudicator's improper use of extra-curial knowledge and the Review Adjudicator's failure to find a palpable and overriding error.
The court assumed jurisdiction to quantify the claimant's award and determine costs.
