T-12 - Transport Act

Section 17.2 Disposition versions

1998-07-21

17.2. Every interested person may apply to the Commission for a review of any decision rendered by the Commission in respect of which no proceeding has been brought before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec

(1)  to present a new fact which, if it had been known in due time, might have justified a different decision;

(2)  where, being a party to the issue, he was, for reasons considered sufficient, unable to present observations;

(3)  where a substantial or procedural defect is likely to invalidate the decision.

A decision containing an error in writing or in calculation or any other clerical error may be corrected by the Commission.

1981, c. 8, s. 5; 1986, c. 95, s. 320; 1997, c. 43, s. 794; 1998, c. 40, s. 157.

1998-04-01

17.2. Every interested person may apply to the Commission for a review of any decision rendered by the Commission in respect of which no proceeding has been brought before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec

(1)  to present a new fact which, if it had been known in due time, might have justified a different decision;

(2)  where, being a party to the issue, he was, for reasons considered sufficient, unable to present observations;

(3)  where a substantial or procedural defect is likely to invalidate the decision.

1981, c. 8, s. 5; 1986, c. 95, s. 320; 1997, c. 43, s. 794.

1987-02-15

17.2. Every interested person may apply to the Commission for a review of any decision rendered by the Commission which has not been appealed from to the Court of Appeal

(1)  to present a new fact which, if it had been known in due time, might have justified a different decision;

(2)  where, being a party to the issue, he was, for reasons considered sufficient, prevented from being heard;

(3)  where a substantial or procedural defect is likely to invalidate the decision.

1981, c. 8, s. 5; 1986, c. 95, s. 320.

1982-01-20

17.2. A decision rendered by a sole member may be reviewed, with leave, where procedure has not been followed or a substantive defect might vitiate the decision.

1981, c. 8, s. 5.