Date: 20010222
Docket: A-592-99
2001 FCA 29
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2001
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Plaintiff
AND:
RÉGINALD LAROCQUE
Defendant
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the board of referees set aside and the matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his representative to be again decided on the basis that the appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from the decision of the board of referees should be allowed.
As there was no application for costs, none are awarded.
|
Robert Décary J.A. |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010222
Docket: A-592-99
2001 FCA 29
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Plaintiff
AND:
RÉGINALD LAROCQUE
Defendant
Hearing held by teleconferencing at Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday, February 20, 2001
Judgment rendered at Ottawa, Ontario on Thursday, February 22, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20010222
Docket: A-592-99
2001 FCA 29
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Plaintiff
AND:
RÉGINALD LAROCQUE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] In my opinion, this application for judicial review should be allowed.
[2] The defendant's case is certainly deserving of sympathy, but the fact remains that the umpire misdirected himself on the law when he concluded that ruling against the defendant [TRANSLATION] "would be completely contrary to the spirit of this social legislation and would not do justice to this claimant".
[3] The evidence actually showed that despite the termination of employment the defendant did not meet the conditions laid down by s. 14(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations for there to be an interruption of earnings: that the insured cease to be employed by his employer and not work for his employer for a period of at least seven consecutive days after the termination.
[4] In the case at bar the defendant continued rendering services to his employer and was in his employ during the week following his termination of employment. He was accordingly disqualified. In the circumstances, the umpire should have allowed the appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from the decision of the board of referees which reversed the Commission's decision.
[5] The application for judicial review should therefore be allowed, the board of referees' decision set aside and the matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his representative to be again decided on the basis that the Attorney General of Canada's appeal from the decision of the board of referees should be allowed.
[6] As there was no application for costs, none will be awarded.
|
Robert Décary J.A. |
I concur.
Gilles Létourneau J.A.
I concur.
Marc Noël J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-592-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
RÉGINALD LAROCQUE
PLACE OF TELECONFERENCE:
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
CARAQUET, NEW BRUNSWICK
DATE OF TELECONFERENCE: FEBRUARY 20, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
DATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Ginette Mazerolle FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Réginald Larocque FOR HIMSELF
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Réginald Larocque FOR HIMSELF