Date: 20041203
Docket: A-418-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 411
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER CURTIS SCHOONER
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on December 2, 2004.
Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on December 3, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LINDEN, SHARLOW JJ.A.
Date: 20041203
Docket: A-418-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 411
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER CURTIS SCHOONER
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of two decisions rendered by Umpire Goulard under the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (Act).
[2] In a November 21, 2002 decision, CUB 55867, the Umpire confirmed the Board of Referees' (Board) well documented findings regarding the overpayment of benefits to the applicant as a result of an allocation of undeclared earnings, but quashed the part which related to the penalty imposed for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
[3] The applicant sought a reconsideration of the decision pursuant to section 120 of the Act:
|
120.The Commission, a board of referees or the umpire may rescind or amend a decision given in any particular claim for benefit if new facts are presented or if it is satisfied that the decision was given without knowledge of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact.
|
120.La Commission, un conseil arbitral ou le juge-arbitre peut annuler ou modifier toute décision relative à une demande particulière de prestations si on lui présente des faits nouveaux ou si, selon sa conviction, la décision a été rendue avant que soit connu un fait essentiel ou a été fondée sur une erreur relative à un tel fait.
|
[4] The Umpire was of the view that no new facts were submitted by the applicant and that, essentially, the motion for reconsideration was an attempt to reargue the case. So on June 2, 2003, he denied the request for reconsideration: see CUB 55867A.
[5] We are confronted with two difficulties with respect to this application for judicial review by the applicant, who is self-represented. Under Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, an application for judicial review is limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought. Here there are two orders from the Umpire and no authorization has been sought from and given by the Court to join the two orders in the same challenge.
[6] Furthermore, as argued by counsel for the respondent, the CUB 55867, dated November 21, 2002, is out of time and no motion for an extension of the time to bring an application has been made and granted. Therefore, only the order in CUB 55867A, made pursuant to the denial of the request for reconsideration, would normally be before us. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we agreed and proceeded to review both decisions on the merits.
[7] With respect to the allocation of his undeclared earnings, the applicant submitted to Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) that his employment with the Department of National Defence involved expenses that exceeded his income. Therefore, there were no earnings to declare and allocate.
[8] On July 21, 2000 the applicant met with a representative of HRDC. He was advised that he had to sort out the expenses that were reimbursed by his employer from those that he had to assume himself if he wanted his claim for deductions to be considered.
[9] On August 21, 2000, the applicant was asked by a representative of HRDC to provide his expense receipts. Two days later, pursuant to another contact by a representative of HRDC, the applicant agreed to provide his receipts by September 5, 2000. On September 6, 2000, he was given an additional week to comply with the demand for production, but he never did. The applicant being an accountant, it is not unreasonable to think that he understood the importance of providing the appropriate receipts to support his claims and that he had the professional ability to produce an acceptable statement of expenses within a short period of time.
[10] Indeed, in his appeal dated May 10, 2001 against the decisions of the Commission allocating his earnings, he indicated that he would provide a week by week report outlining his earnings an expenses: see Respondent's Record, page 00134. The fact is that he did not produce receipts of his direct expenses before the Board. Therefore it was literally impossible for the Board and the Umpire who sat on appeal to assess the merit of the applicant's claim to
deductions. Neither the Board nor the Umpire can be blamed for the applicant's omission to produce the receipts. On the basis of the evidence that was before it, the Board could not come to another conclusion than the one it reached. Therefore, the Umpire was right to conclude that the Board committed no error on the issue of computation and allocation of the applicant's earnings.
[11] The applicant in answering a question from the panel said that he did not file receipts with the Board because he thought that the Board would have rejected them as they had already been rejected by the Commission. This is not a valid justification. Moreover, the Board is an independent decision maker vested with the power to review the Commission's decisions. Had the applicant presented evidence of his expenses, the Board would have had to rule on its admissibility and weight and that decision would have been reviewable by the Umpire, if properly challenged.
[12] As for the decision in CUB 55867A, we see no error in the Umpire's finding that the applicant submitted no new facts in support of his request for reconsideration or failed to establish that the decision omitted to consider material facts or err in considering such facts.
[13] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
"I agree" (Sgd.) "Allen M. Linden"
J.A.
"I agree" (Sgd.) "Karen R. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-418-03
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF UMPIRE GUY GOULARD, CUB55867A, DATED 02 JUNE 2003
STYLE OF CAUSE: Christopher Curtis Schooner v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: 02 December 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LINDEN, SHARLOW JJ.A.
DATED: December 3, 2004
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Christopher Curtis Schooner ( on his own behalf ) |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
Mr. Ward Bansley |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Mr. Christopher Curtis Schooner ( on his own behalf ) |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
Mr. Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |