[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20011029
Docket: 2001-1940(EI)
2001-1941(EI)
BETWEEN:
GINETTE MEUNIER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Somers, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] These cases were heard on common
evidence at Montréal, Quebec, on October 3, 2001.
[2] In file
No. 2001-1940(EI), the Minister of National Revenue
(the "Minister"), by letter dated March 26, 2001,
informed the appellant of his decision that the number of hours
worked during the period in issue, between August 24 and
November 9, 1998, for Productions Maraîchères
Mailhot Inc. (payer Mailhot) totalled 462 insurable
hours.
[3] In file
No. 2001-1941(EI), the Minister, by letter dated
March 26, 2001, informed the appellant of his decision that
her employment with the Directeur Général des
élections du Québec (payer Québec), on
November 30, 1998, was not insurable since it had been held
for less than 25 days.
[4] In making his decision in file
No. 2001-1940(EI), the Minister relied on the
following facts, which were either admitted or denied:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) During the
period in issue, the appellant rendered services to the payer
under a contract of service. (admitted)
(b) At the time of
her departure on November 9, 1998, the appellant received
from the payer an amount of $132.24, representing her
"4%". (admitted)
(c) During the
period in issue, the appellant was absent from her work due to
illness for a period of 4 1/2 days. (admitted)
(d) The appellant
was remunerated by the payer in accordance with an hourly rate;
her hours of sick leave were not remunerated by the payer.
(admitted)
(e) The respondent
informed the appellant that the insurable hours of employment
were hours actually worked and remunerated or hours deemed to
have been worked such as paid leave hours. (admitted)
(f) During the
period in issue, the appellant accumulated 462 insurable
hours of work with the payer. (denied)
[5] In making his decision in file No.
2001-1941(EI), the Minister relied on the following facts:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) On
November 30, 1998, the appellant worked for the payer as a
deputy returning officer on election day. (admitted)
(b) That position
involved one 12-hour day of actual work. (denied)
(c) The appellant
claims instead that she worked 18 hours for the payer
because she had to show up somewhere the day before to receive
documents and be sworn in, and she had to report one hour
before the election officially began. (admitted)
(d) The respondent
informed the appellant that the employment held by a person in
the government of a province in connection with an election
or referendum was not insurable if that person did not regularly
hold employment with that employer and held that employment for
less than 25 days. (admitted)
File No. 2001-1940(EI)
[6] The appellant admitted all the
facts as alleged, except subparagraph 5(f) of the Reply to
the Notice of Appeal, denying that she had accumulated only
462 insurable hours of work with the payer.
[7] The appellant declared that she
worked for the payer Mailhot during the period in issue and that
she was paid an hourly wage.
[8] At the time of her departure, on
November 9, 1998, the appellant received from the payer
Mailhot an amount of $132.24 representing her four percent
vacation pay.
[9] During the said period in issue,
the appellant was absent from her work due to illness for a
period totalling four and a half days.
[10] The appellant was not paid for her sick
leave since she was paid by the hour. Nor did she receive
vacation leave days but was paid an amount of four percent
of her salary.
[11] The appellant did not actually work
during the days in question.
[12] Section 9.1 of the Employment
Insurance Regulations (the "Regulations") reads as
follows:
Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the
person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for
the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which
the person was remunerated.
[13] The evidence showed that the appellant
did not actually work during the sick days. Nor can the sum of
$132.24 be considered in computing the number of insurable days
because she did not actually work.
[14] Thus, the number of hours worked by the
appellant with the payer Mailhot during the period in issue
totalled 462 in accordance with the provisions of
section 9.1 of the Regulations.
File No. 2001-1941(EI)
[15] The appellant admitted all the facts as
alleged by the Minister except subparagraph 5(b) of the
Reply to the Notice of Appeal.
[16] On November 30, 1998, the
appellant worked for the Directeur Général des
élections du Québec as a deputy returning officer
on election day.
[17] The appellant stated that she had
worked 18 hours for the payer Québec on election day,
from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., preparing ballot boxes,
recounting votes and closing ballot boxes, in addition to four
hours of training on the day preceding the election.
[18] She was not a regular employee of the
Directeur des élections. She admits that she only worked
the above number of hours for this payer.
[19] Subsection 8(1) of the
Regulations reads in part as follows:
Subject to subsection (2), the following employments are
excluded from insurable employment:
...
(c) employment of a person by Her Majesty in
right of Canada, the government of a province, a municipality or
a school board in connection with a referendum or election to
public office if the person
(i) is not regularly employed by that employer, and
(ii) is employed by that employer in that employment for
less than 25 days.
[20] The evidence showed that the appellant
did not hold regular employment with this payer and that she held
employment for less than 25 days.
[21] For the purposes of the Employment
Insurance Act, Parliament saw fit to make this exception and
to exclude this employment from insurable employment.
[22] Parliament allows that regulations be
made to exclude certain employments from insurable employment.
The Court cannot flout those regulations.
[23] Thus, during the period in issue, that
is, November 30, 1998, the appellant did not hold insurable
employment with the payer in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Regulations.
[24] The appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of October 2001.
D.J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 17th day of February 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
Email this Content