Date: 20100921
Dockets:
A-193-09
A-189-09
A-190-09
A-191-09
A-194-09
A-195-09
Citation:
2010 FCA 237
CORAM: NOËL
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
Docket:
A-193-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PHILIPPE GAGNÉ
Respondent
Docket:
A-189-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
STEEVE CASTONGUAY
Respondent
Docket:
A-190-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DAVID DROUIN
Respondent
Docket:
A-191-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
SAMUEL GIRARD
Respondent
Docket:
A-194-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
YAN TREMBLAY
Respondent
Docket:
A-195-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
RICHARD GUILLEMETTE
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September
21, 2010.
REASONS OF
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20100921
Dockets:
A-193-09
A-189-09
A-190-09
A-191-09
A-194-09
A-195-09
Citation:
2010 FCA 237
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
Docket:
A-193-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PHILIPPE GAGNÉ
Respondent
Docket:
A-189-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
STEEVE CASTONGUAY
Respondent
Docket:
A-190-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DAVID DROUIN
Respondent
Docket:
A-191-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
SAMUEL GIRARD
Respondent
Docket:
A-194-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
YAN TREMBLAY
Respondent
Docket:
A-195-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
RICHARD GUILLEMETTE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010)
NOËL J.A.
[1]
In accordance with an order made by this Court
on July 30, 2009, the reasons below in Philippe Gagné’s file (A‑193‑09)
apply mutatis mutandis and dispose of the five other files. A copy will
therefore be placed in each of the other files to stand as reasons in those
cases.
[2]
The Board of Referees determined first that
Philippe Gagné had not lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The
Umpire refused to interfere in that decision for the following reason:
. . . [T]he Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that
the claimants involved could not suspect that their behaviour would jeopardize
their employment, given that this behaviour had long been tolerated, even by
the supervisors, and that these actions had been committed in plain sight and
with the knowledge of the supervisors without penalty, at least as far as the
claimants knew. The Board could therefore conclude based on this evidence that
the claimants’ actions did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Employment
Insurance Act. (Reasons, page 5)
[3]
There is no error in that statement as regards
the applicable principle in matters of misconduct. The only question which
arises is whether the Umpire could make this finding based on the evidence, and
it is this Court’s opinion that he could.
[4]
The application for judicial review will
therefore be dismissed with costs in file A‑193‑09 only.
“Marc Noël”
Certified true
translation
Tu-Quynh Trinh
FEDERAL COURT
OF APPEAL
NAMES OF
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-193-09,
A-189-09, A-190-09, A-191-09, A-194-09 and A-195-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney
General of Canada v. Philippe Gagné, Steeve Castonguay, David Drouin, Samuel
Girard, Yan Tremblay, Richard Guillemette
PLACE OF
HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF
HEARING: September 21, 2010
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
DELIVERED
FROM THE BENCH BY: NOËL J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Antoine Lippé
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Jean Mailloux
|
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE
APPLICANT
|
|
Pépin et Roy
Québec, Quebec
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
|
Email this Content