Date: 19980217
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
MARCEAU J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-511-97
BETWEEN:
André Légaré, Jean-Pierre Allard, Gérard Auclair,
André Belisle, Guy Béliveau, Pierre Béliveau,
Daniel Bies, Nicole Blais, Denis Boisvert,
Jean-Guy Boucher, Dominique Boucher, Jocelyn Boutin,
Mario Brouillard, Serge Brouillard, Yvan Cartier,
Raymond Charland, Monique Côté, André Côté,
Jean-C. Courchesne, Gilles Courchesne, Denis Cournoyer,
Sylvie Cournoyer, Mario Daneau, Jacques Daunais,
Luc Deguise, André Deshaies, Francine Desmarais,
Denis Desrosiers, Jean Deziel, Jacques Dodge, Clarisse Dubé,
Pierre Dulude, Yvon Dumais, Yvon Dupuis,
Mario Forcier, James Fraleux, Jean-G. Frappier,
Jocelyne Gamelin, Charles E. Gauthier, André Gendron,
René Généreux, Jean R. Gervais, Claire Girard, André Goulet,
Hélène Goulet, Réjean Grégoire, Agnes Grimard, Louise Joyal,
André Lacombe, Denis Lafleur, Danielle Latour,
Laurent Latraverse, Jacques Leblanc, Réjean Lefebvre,
Louise Letendre, Louise Liessens, George Marchand,
Estelle Martel, Réal Mongeau, Guy Moreau, Richard Morin,
Richard Morin, Claude Pagé, Diane Pagé, Daniel Paquin,
Alain Pelletier, Claude Péloquin, Ronald Péloquin,
Suzanne Péloquin, Danielle Plante, Daniel Poirier,
Richard Proulx, Denis Provencher, Ghislaine Provost,
Annette Rajotte, Jean M. Salvail, Michel Salvas, Richard Salvas,
Michel Simard, Roland Simonot, Donald St-Germain,
Cyrille Trépanier, Jacques Vandal, Yvon Vigneault,
Applicants,
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (A.G.C.),
Respondents.
A N D
Docket: A-512-97
BETWEEN:
Jean Bellerose, Hélène Blanchard, Yvan Boissé,
Claire Caisse, Sylvie Lambert,
Victor Larochelle, Rolland Mathieu,
Richard Millette, Alain Niquette, Gérard Roux,
Jean-Pierre St-André, Yvon Verrette,
Applicants,
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (A.G.C.),
Respondents.
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, February 17, 1998.
Judgment delivered from the bench on Tuesday, February 17, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PRATTE J.A.
Date: 19980217
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
MARCEAU J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-511-97
BETWEEN:
André Légaré, Jean-Pierre Allard, Gérard Auclair,
André Belisle, Guy Béliveau, Pierre Béliveau,
Daniel Bies, Nicole Blais, Denis Boisvert,
Jean-Guy Boucher, Dominique Boucher, Jocelyn Boutin,
Mario Brouillard, Serge Brouillard, Yvan Cartier,
Raymond Charland, Monique Côté, André Côté,
Jean-C. Courchesne, Gilles Courchesne, Denis Cournoyer,
Sylvie Cournoyer, Mario Daneau, Jacques Daunais,
Luc Deguise, André Deshaies, Francine Desmarais,
Denis Desrosiers, Jean Deziel, Jacques Dodge, Clarisse Dubé,
Pierre Dulude, Yvon Dumais, Yvon Dupuis,
Mario Forcier, James Fraleux, Jean-G. Frappier,
Jocelyne Gamelin, Charles E. Gauthier, André Gendron,
René Généreux, Jean R. Gervais, Claire Girard, André Goulet,
Hélène Goulet, Réjean Grégoire, Agnes Grimard, Louise Joyal,
André Lacombe, Denis Lafleur, Danielle Latour,
Laurent Latraverse, Jacques Leblanc, Réjean Lefebvre,
Louise Letendre, Louise Liessens, George Marchand,
Estelle Martel, Réal Mongeau, Guy Moreau, Richard Morin,
Richard Morin, Claude Pagé, Diane Pagé, Daniel Paquin,
Alain Pelletier, Claude Péloquin, Ronald Péloquin,
Suzanne Péloquin, Danielle Plante, Daniel Poirier,
Richard Proulx, Denis Provencher, Ghislaine Provost,
Annette Rajotte, Jean M. Salvail, Michel Salvas, Richard Salvas,
Michel Simard, Roland Simonot, Donald St-Germain,
Cyrille Trépanier, Jacques Vandal, Yvon Vigneault,
Applicants,
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (A.G.C.),
Respondents.
A N D
Docket: A-512-97
BETWEEN:
Jean Bellerose, Hélène Blanchard, Yvan Boissé,
Claire Caisse, Sylvie Lambert,
Victor Larochelle, Rolland Mathieu,
Richard Millette, Alain Niquette, Gérard Roux,
Jean-Pierre St-André, Yvon Verrette,
Applicants,
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (A.G.C.),
Respondents.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on
Tuesday, February 17, 1998)
PRATTE J.A.
[1] We all agree that the Umpire committed no error justifying the intervention of this Court in determining that the applicants in both dockets, who are all members of the Syndicat des employés de bureau de GEC Alsthom Électromécanique, were directly interested in the strike by those employees of the same employer represented by the Syndicat des employés de production.
[2] In support of the contrary view, counsel for the applicants submitted that the only employees who are "directly interested" in a labour dispute within the meaning of subsection 31(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act1 are those whose working conditions will be automatically determined or modified by the settlement of the dispute.
[3] We do not agree. This is a much more complex issue which, as has often been said, must be resolved in light of all the facts of each case. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Umpire committed an error in law.
[4] The application will be dismissed.
Louis Pratte
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980217
Docket: A-511-97
BETWEEN:
André Légaré, Jean-Pierre Allard, Gérard Auclair,
André Belisle, Guy Béliveau, Pierre Béliveau,
Daniel Bies, Nicole Blais, Denis Boisvert,
Jean-Guy Boucher, Dominique Boucher, Jocelyn Boutin,
Mario Brouillard, Serge Brouillard, Yvan Cartier,
Raymond Charland, Monique Côté, André Côté,
Jean-C. Courchesne, Gilles Courchesne, Denis Cournoyer,
Sylvie Cournoyer, Mario Daneau, Jacques Daunais,
Luc Deguise, André Deshaies, Francine Desmarais,
Denis Desrosiers, Jean Deziel, Jacques Dodge, Clarisse Dubé,
Pierre Dulude, Yvon Dumais, Yvon Dupuis,
Mario Forcier, James Fraleux, Jean-G. Frappier,
Jocelyne Gamelin, Charles E. Gauthier, André Gendron,
René Généreux, Jean R. Gervais, Claire Girard, André Goulet,
Hélène Goulet, Réjean Grégoire, Agnes Grimard, Louise Joyal,
André Lacombe, Denis Lafleur, Danielle Latour,
Laurent Latraverse, Jacques Leblanc, Réjean Lefebvre,
Louise Letendre, Louise Liessens, George Marchand,
Estelle Martel, Réal Mongeau, Guy Moreau, Richard Morin,
Richard Morin, Claude Pagé, Diane Pagé, Daniel Paquin,
Alain Pelletier, Claude Péloquin, Ronald Péloquin,
Suzanne Péloquin, Danielle Plante, Daniel Poirier,
Richard Proulx, Denis Provencher, Ghislaine Provost,
Annette Rajotte, Jean M. Salvail, Michel Salvas, Richard Salvas,
Michel Simard, Roland Simonot, Donald St-Germain,
Cyrille Trépanier, Jacques Vandal, Yvon Vigneault,
Applicants,
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (A.G.C.),
Respondents.
A N D
Docket: A-512-97
BETWEEN:
Jean Bellerose, Hélène Blanchard, Yvan Boissé,
Claire Caisse, Sylvie Lambert,
Victor Larochelle, Rolland Mathieu,
Richard Millette, Alain Niquette, Gérard Roux,
Jean-Pierre St-André, Yvon Verrette,
Applicants,
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (A.G.C.),
Respondents.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-512-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN BELLEROSE ET AL. v. CEIC ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 17, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF PRATTE, MARCEAU AND LÉTOURNEAU JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PRATTE J.A.
APPEARANCES:
GUY MARTIN FOR THE APPLICANTS
CAROLE BUREAU AND PAUL DESCHÊNES FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
SAUVÉ ET ROY, MTL., QC. FOR THE APPLICANTS
GEORGE THOMSON
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA FOR THE RESPONDENTS
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO. : A-511-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDRÉ LÉGARÉ ET AL. v. CEIC ET AL. |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 17, 1998 |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF PRATTE, MARCEAU AND LÉTOURNEAU JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PRATTE J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| GUY MARTIN FOR THE APPLICANTS |
CAROLE BUREAU AND PAUL DESCHÊNES FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| SAUVÉ ET ROY, MTL., QC. FOR THE APPLICANTS |
GEORGE THOMSON
| DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA FOR THE RESPONDENTS |
__________________
1 This subsection reads as follows:
31. (2) This section does not apply if a claimant proves that the claimant is not participating in, financing or directly interested in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work.
Email this Content