BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
MARY KOLETSAS
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 31, 2007.
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on February 1, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MALONE J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A. EVANS J.A.
Docket: A-49-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 30
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
EVANS J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
MARY KOLETSAS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an Umpire dated December 15, 2005 (reported as CUB 65005), which allowed in part Ms. Koletsas’ appeal for employment insurance benefits. The sole issue is whether the Umpire in applying subsection 26(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332 (Regulations) applied the correct subsection in reaching his conclusion. The applicant says that the Umpire should have applied subsection 26(2) and not allowed the appeal.
[2] Subsection 26(1) of the Regulations sets out the time limit to make a claim for benefits. The section states that a claim must be made within three weeks after the week which benefits are claimed. Subsection 26(2), on the other hand, sets out the time limit to file an application for a renewal claim. A renewal claim is a claim made by a claimant who seeks to reactivate a benefit period previously established by an initial claim that has laid dormant for four consecutive weeks or more. This type of claim must be made within one week for which benefits are claimed.
[3] These subsections read as follows:
|
26. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a claim for benefits for a week of unemployment in a benefit period shall be made by a claimant within three weeks after the week for which benefits are claimed.
(2) Where a claimant has not made a claim for benefits for four or more consecutive weeks, the first claim for benefits after that period for a week of unemployment shall be made within one week after the week for which benefits are claimed.
|
26. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le prestataire qui demande des prestations pour une semaine de chômage comprise dans une période de prestations présente sa demande dans les trois semaines qui suivent cette semaine.
(2) Le prestataire qui n’a pas demandé de prestations durant quatre semaines consécutives ou plus et qui en fait la demande par la suite pour une semaine de chômage présente sa demande dans la semaine qui suit cette dernière.
|
[4] In the present case, Ms. Koletsas lost her employment on April 12, 2005. The record demonstrates that the only claims made by Ms. Koletsas were the initial claim, which was filed on April 17, 2005 and a claim filed over eight weeks later on June 24, 2005. Pursuant to subsection 26(2), this subsequent claim is a renewal claim.
[5] I am of the view that the Umpire erred in law when he applied subsection 26(1) of the Regulations to the respondent’s claim. The Commission’s decision that Ms. Koletsas’ benefits could begin no earlier than the week of June 12, 2005, one week prior to the week including June 24, 2005, was correct.
[6] The application for judicial review should be allowed and the Umpire’s decision in CUB 65005 based on subsection 26(1) of the Regulations should be set aside. The matter should be remitted to the Chief Umpire or another Umpire designated by him for re-determination on the basis that the Umpire erred in law in applying subsection 26(1) rather than subsection 26(2) of the Regulations.
“I agree
Robert Décary”
J.A.
“I agree
John M. Evans”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-49-06
(APPEAL FROM THE UMPIRE DATED DECEMBER 16, 2005, DOCKET NO.CUB 65005)
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v.
MARY KOLETSAS
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 31, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Malone J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.
EVANS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT (On her own behalf)
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
Markham, Ontario |
FOR THE RESPONDENT (On her own behalf) |