BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 22, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 22, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Docket: A-340-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 120
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
HOWARD FERGUSON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 22, 2007)
[1] This is an application for judicial review by the Attorney General of Canada to set aside a decision of an Umpire (CUB 64664A) allowing an appeal by Howard Ferguson from a decision of a Board of Referees, dated June 29, 2004. The Board upheld a decision by the Commission that a lump sum payment to Mr Ferguson by his employer constituted “earnings” for the purpose of the employment insurance scheme which should be allocated to weeks when he was in receipt of employment insurance benefits, thereby resulting in an overpayment of benefits.
[2] The payment had been made pursuant to an income extension aid program contained in a collective agreement between Mr Ferguson’s employer and the union which represented him. The program was designed to assist employees who had been laid off for lack of work; Mr Ferguson received the payment on the voluntary termination of his employment. There was no factual basis for allocating the sum paid among the various items in the agreement, including the surrender of recall rights.
[3] In our opinion, this case is distinguishable from the authorities on which the Umpire relied (Canada (Attorney General), v. Plasse, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1671, and Meechan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 368). In those cases, the payments were made pursuant to the settlement of disputes over the alleged wrongful dismissal of the employees in question. The facts of the present case are analogous to those in Canada (Attorney General) v. Roch, 2003 FCA 356, where payments made under a work force reduction program were held to be “earnings”.
[4] Whether the payment in the present case represented “earnings” is a question of mixed fact and law, a question on which the Board’s decision is reviewable by both the Umpire and this Court on a standard of unreasonableness simpliciter, absent a wrong determination of any extricable question of law: Meechan at para. 16.
[5] In our view, given the breadth of the words “earnings”, there was nothing unreasonable in the Board’s conclusion that the income extension aid program fell within the scope of “earnings”. Nor did the Board’s decision involve a more general question of law.
[6] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the order of the Umpire will be set aside, and the matter remitted to the Chief Umpire or his Designate for re-determination in accordance with these reasons.
“John M. Evans”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v.
HOWARD FERGUSON
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 22, 2007
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
OF THE COURT BY: (DÉCARY, SEXTON & EVANS JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: EVANS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Derek Edwards FOR THE APPELLANT
No appearance FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE APPELLANT
Howard Ferguson
Brantford, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
(on his own behalf)