Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040318

Docket: A-289-03

Citation: 2004 FCA 117

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

NOËLJ.A.

PELLETIERJ.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                            YVAN BOURGEOIS

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                                     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                                                   OF CANADA

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                    Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2004.

                   Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2004.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:                                                             NOËL J.A.


Date: 20040318

Docket: A-289-03

Citation: 2004 FCA 117

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

NOËL J.A.

PELLETIERJ.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                            YVAN BOURGEOIS

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                                                   OF CANADA

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT

                     (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2004.)

NOËL J.A.

[1]                It was incumbent upon the applicant to establish that all or part of the sums received as a result of his dismissal amounted to something other than earnings within the meaning of the Act (Attorney General of Canada v. Mary Radigan), [2001] 267 N.R. 129 (FCA).

[2]                Both the Umpire and the Board of Referees, held that the applicant was unable to discharge this burden. In our opinion, the evidence supported this finding.


[3]                The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.

                  "Marc Noël"                    

J.A.

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB


                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

                                                                                                                                                           

DOCKET:                                                                               A-289-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                               YVAN BOURGEOIS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                         Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                           March 18, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:              RICHARD C.J.

NOËL J.A.                                           PELLETIER J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                             NOËL J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Gilbert Nadon

FOR THE APPLICANT

Carole Bureau

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                                                                                                          

OUELLET, NADON & ASSOCIÉS

Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE APPLICANT

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.