b'Mr. Hershkovitz submitted an applicationdecision was not unreasonable because it for review of the notice of violation by theconsidered Mr. Hershkovitzs argument of Minister of Public Safety and Emergencybeing misled but did not accept it.Preparedness (Minister). He was informed that a review was not possible because Second, Mr. Hershkovitz argued that the the penalty had already been paid. Tribunal could consider natural justice and Mr. Hershkovitz then filed a request forprocedural fairness under the doctrine of review of the notice of violation by thejurisdiction by necessary implication to Tribunal, which found the request for reviewensure that the applicant is not deprived of inadmissible. The rationale for that decisiontheir right to challenge a notice of violation. was based on the same reasons given by theThe Federal Court of Appeal ruled that this Minister, but also took into consideration thatdoctrine did not apply in this case. The the law and the notice of violation were clear,legislation is clear: paying the penalty putsand that Mr. Hershkovitz was not misled an end to the process and prevents the when he paid the reduced penalty. offender from filing a request for review before the Tribunal.In turn, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review with costsThe Federal Court of Appeal reiterated the deciding that the Tribunals decision wasimportance of Doyon7noting the draconian reasonable based on two determining factors. nature of the current absolute liability regime.First, the penalty had been paid andMr. Hershkovitz was deemed to have committed the violation. The Tribunals 7 Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General),2009 FCA 152. ANNUAL REPORT 2020-2021 17'