Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content



         Date: 20000531

Docket: A-305-99




Coram:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY

    

Between:

2970-7080 QUÉBEC INC.,

GIUSEPPINA PETRACCONE,

PASQUALE PETRACCONE,

LORENZO RAMADORI

-and-

SESTO RAMADORI



Appellants

-AND-


ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA


Respondent




Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on Wednesday, May 31, 2000


Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on Wednesday, May 31, 2000




REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                             




Date: 20000531

                             Docket: A-305-99



Coram:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY


Between:

2970-7080 QUÉBEC INC.,

GIUSEPPINA PETRACCONE,

PASQUALE PETRACCONE,

LORENZO RAMADORI

-and-

SESTO RAMADORI



Appellants

-AND-


ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA


Respondent




REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered from the bench at Montréal,

Quebec, on Wednesday, May 31, 2000)


THE CHIEF JUSTICE

[1]      This is an appeal of a decision of Mr. Justice Pinard (1999) 166 F.T.R. 290,

dismissing the appellants" application for judicial review of a refusal by officials

Page: 2

to refund certain employment insurance premiums on the grounds that their refund application was not made within the three-year period prescribed by subsection 96(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

[2]      Subsection 96(1) of the Act is unambiguous and makes no exception for

employees who are related to the employer, as counsel for the appellants argues.

[3]      We are satisfied that Mr. Justice Pinard did not err in law in dismissing the

application for judicial review nor in deciding that the appellants could not, under the

circumstances, raise the issue of unjust enrichment in the context of their application for judicial review.

[4]      The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.


                                         J. Richard

                                         C.J.

Certified true translation

Mary Jo Egan, LL.B.



                                     Date: 20000531

                             Docket: A-305-99


MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 31st DAY OF MAY 2000


Coram:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY


Between:

2970-7080 QUÉBEC INC.,

GIUSEPPINA PETRACCONE,

PASQUALE PETRACCONE,

LORENZO RAMADORI

-and-

SESTO RAMADORI



Appellants

-AND-


ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA


Respondent


JUDGMENT


The appeal is dismissed with costs.

                                         J. Richard

                                         C.J.

                

Certified true translation


Mary Jo Egan, LL.B.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION


NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL DIVISION

DATED APRIL 28, 1999, COURT FILE NO.: T-1879-98


DOCKET:              A-305-89
STYLE OF CAUSE:      2970-7080 QUÉBEC INC.,

                 ET AL.

Appellants

                 AND

                 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA


Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:          Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:          May 31, 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

DATED:                  May 31, 2000

APPEARANCES:

Michel Mathieu                              for the Appellants
Maria Grazia Bittichesu          for the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

SWEIBEL, NOVEK      for the Appellants

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg              for the Respondent

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION

Date: 2000531
Docket: A-305-99


BETWEEN:
2970-7080 QUÉBEC INC.,
GIUSEPPINA PETRACCONE,
PASQUALE PETRACCONE,
LORENZO RAMADORI
-and-
SESTO RAMADORI
Appellants
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent








     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT



 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.