Date: 19981203
Docket: A-41-98
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
SYLVIA KUMP, ALICE BANABANIAN,
YVES ASSELIN, DANIEL PINET, SUZY EVOY,
LOUISE CHARETTE, CATHY KIRKWOOD,
MARIE-CLAIRE HAYES, ANNIE LACROIX,
ANDRÉA E. HÉBEL, PATRICE DRUDI LEMAIRE,
SERGIO TEJA, NORMAND LESSARD,
CLAUDINE LANTHIER, MANON BEAUDOIN,
JEAN-CLAUDE COUILLARD, ROBERT LEDOUX,
JOHN KARKAR, JOHANNE THERRIEN,
NATHALIE SANSON and AUDREY DUCHÊNE
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec
on Thursday, December 3, 1998)
PRATTE J.A.
[1] The respondents did not appeal to the Umpire from the decision of the Commission which declared they had lost their employment on November 19, 1991 because of a work stoppage at the place at which they were employed and accordingly could not receive unemployment insurance benefits until the end of this work stoppage.
[2] The respondents did, however, appeal a subsequent decision by the Commission which determined April 1st, 1993, as the date of the end of the work stoppage. This appeal was heard by the Umpire at the same time as appeals by co-workers of the respondents who had, however, challenged not only the decisions affecting them which determined the date of the end of the work stoppage, but also those which denied them benefits on the ground they had lost their employment because of a work stoppage at their place of work.
[3] The Umpire issued only one ruling which, he wrote, was to apply "mutatis mutandis" to all of the appellants. In that decision, the Umpire considered only one question: whether there was in fact a work stoppage at the place at which the appellants were employed. He answered this question in the negative and concluded by saying:
[TRANSLATION]
| "I am accordingly of the view that the claimants did not lose their employment because of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute and that their right to benefits must be re-established." |
[4] The applicant argued that this decision must be quashed insofar as it applies to the respondents because they did not appeal the Commission"s first decision, and therefore the only question raised in their appeal was whether the work stoppage did in fact end on the date determined by the Commission, a question which had to be answered on the assumption that the respondents had lost their employment as the Commission had determined, because of a work stoppage where they were employed.
[5] It is true that it might have been preferable for the Umpire to indicate that, at least on the surface, the respondent"s appeal and those of their co-workers raised different questions. The fact remains, however, that he was not wrong to find that the respondents and their co-workers should all be treated the same way.
[6] A work stoppage which does not exist cannot end. Having found, correctly in our view, that there had been no work stoppage at the place where the respondents worked, it necessarily followed that the Umpire, who had to assume that the Commission"s decision imposing a disentitlement to benefits on the respondents was sound, had to conclude that this disentitlement ended as soon as it was imposed.
[7] The application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Louis Pratte
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19981203
Docket: A-41-98
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
SYLVIA KUMP, ALICE BANABANIAN,
YVES ASSELIN, DANIEL PINET, SUZY EVOY,
LOUISE CHARETTE, CATHY KIRKWOOD,
MARIE-CLAIRE HAYES, ANNIE LACROIX,
ANDRÉA E. HÉBEL, PATRICE DRUDI LEMAIRE,
SERGIO TEJA, NORMAND LESSARD,
CLAUDINE LANTHIER, MANON BEAUDOIN,
JEAN-CLAUDE COUILLARD, ROBERT LEDOUX,
JOHN KARKAR, JOHANNE THERRIEN,
NATHALIE SANSON and AUDREY DUCHÊNE
Respondents
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Thursday, December 3, 1998.
Judgment delivered from the bench on Thursday, December 3, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PRATTE J.A.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19981203
Docket: A-41-98
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
SYLVIA KUMP, ALICE BANABANIAN,
YVES ASSELIN, DANIEL PINET, SUZY EVOY,
LOUISE CHARETTE, CATHY KIRKWOOD,
MARIE-CLAIRE HAYES, ANNIE LACROIX,
ANDRÉA E. HÉBEL, PATRICE DRUDI LEMAIRE,
SERGIO TEJA, NORMAND LESSARD,
CLAUDINE LANTHIER, MANON BEAUDOIN,
JEAN-CLAUDE COUILLARD, ROBERT LEDOUX,
JOHN KARKAR, JOHANNE THERRIEN,
NATHALIE SANSON and AUDREY DUCHÊNE
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-41-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney General of Canada
v. Sylvia Kump et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 3 and 4, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (Pratte, Desjardins, Décary JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PRATTE J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Carole Bureau for the applicant
Suzon Létourneau
Jean-Guy Ouellet for the respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the applicant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Campeau Ouellet & Associés for the respondents
Avocats
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content