Date: 20050303
Docket: A-273-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 89
CORAM : DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
RICHARD DESJARDINS
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on March 3, 2005.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, on March 3, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20050303
Docket: A-273-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 89
CORAM : DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
RICHARD DESJARDINS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, on March 3, 2005)
[1] After careful consideration in this case, which has been misguided since the ambiguous decision by the Board of Referees (Board) dated September 7, 2000, we would dismiss the appeal from the decision by the Federal Court cancelling the garnishment carried out by the Commission pursuant to subsections 126(4) and (5) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (Act).
[2] On September 7, 2000, the Board rescinded the Commission's decision on two grounds. First, it determined that there was no evidence of false or misleading representations, thereby rescinding the penalty imposed by the Commission. Second, it stated that in absence of false representations, the case was statute barred.
[3] In our opinion, the Board's decision rescinding the Commission's decision had the effect of rescinding the penalty and the claim for reimbursement of the overpayment. To the extent that this decision by the Board declared that the claim for reimbursement of the overpayment of benefits paid after January 19, 1994, was statute barred, that part of the decision was wrong because the Commission could rely on the thirty-six (36) month deadline provided under subsection 43(1) of the Act, without the requirement that there be false representations. Yet the Commission did not appeal that decision which was unfavourable to it.
[4] It is clear that the Commission did not fully grasp the significance of the Board's decision and it cannot be faulted given the ambiguity of that decision. Unfortunately, that ambiguity was increased by the pitifully brief decision by the Umpire who heard an appeal brought by the respondent (CUB 51852).
[5] The respondent, who had understood that the Board's decision was in his favour, was surprised to receive from the Commission a claim for reimbursement of the overpayment following the Board's decision. That is why he appealed to the Umpire, asking for a decision on the issue of the overpayment. The Umpire simply stated that: "[t]he appeal was dismissed based on the attorneys' representations". He added that the Board's decision was confirmed, a decision that we interpret as deciding the issue of the overpayment and the penalty.
[6] We therefore agree with the determination made by the Federal Court judge, namely to cancel the garnishment. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-273-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. RICHARD DESJARDINS
PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: March 3, 2005
CORAM : DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: March 3, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Paul Deschênes FOR THE APPELLANT
Denis Gingras FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD :
Department of Justice Canada FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
Gingras, Vallerand, Barma. Laroche, Amyot FOR THE RESPONDENT
Québec, Quebec