Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
^It's a weird situation though because the Government was one of the applicants. It's like asking for an order, getting the order, and then appealing the order.
I agree, to the extent that the Board is conducting a hearing and rendering a decision on an application by an interested party. But this is a bit of a different situation, no? My understanding is, they basically just rubber-stamped the agreements. Seems less "quasi-judicial" in its role in this context.
|
Doesn't sound like their mandate was to rubber stamp. Indeed the Commission apparently received 70 requests for amendment or variance of the original proposal (prepared by an independent assessment team. 8 of those requests proceeded to a public hearing (held for over a week). Interestingly, none of those requests were related to the "change in law" provision. Also, interestingly, after the public hearings, the Commission determined that none of the proposed requests met the criteria to justify ordering a change (which I suppose might lend some support for your "rubber stamping" argument.)
Anyway, as I understand it, the government's complaint isn't about rubber stamping. If the Commission had just rubber stamped the IAT'a proposal, we probably wouldn't be here (or maybe we would but it would be a very different argument). The government is complaining that the Commission changes the PPA language proposed by the IAT outside the public hearing process set out in the legislation (that's the allegation anyway).