Date: 20070919
Docket: A-576-06
Citation: 2007 FCA
292
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
KIM
GEORGE CORBETT
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on September
13, 2007.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on September
19, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
NADON J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY:
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20070919
Docket: A-576-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 292
CORAM: NOËL
J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
KIM GEORGE CORBETT
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review of two decisions rendered by Umpire Guy Goulard
(CUBs 63985 and 63985A) and one by Chief Umpire Designate Paul Rouleau (CUB
63985B).
[2]
In his
first decision dated July 8, 2005, Umpire Goulard concluded that the Board of Referees
had made no error in determining that the applicant had lost his employment
with Maple Leaf Meats Inc. by reason of his misconduct.
[3]
In his
second decision dated December 23, 2005, Umpire Goulard dealt with a request by
the applicant for reconsideration of his earlier decision made pursuant to
section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act, which reads as follows:
|
120. The Commission, a board of referees or the
umpire may rescind or amend a decision given in any particular claim for
benefit if new facts are presented or if it is satisfied that the decision
was given without knowledge of, or was based on a mistake as to, some
material fact.
|
120. La Commission, un conseil arbitral ou le
juge-arbitre peut annuler ou modifier toute décision relative à une demande
particulière de prestations si on lui présente des faits nouveaux ou si,
selon sa conviction, la décision a été rendue avant que soit
|
[4]
In
dismissing the applicant’s request, the Umpire concluded that there was no
basis for him to reconsider because the applicant had not satisfied him that
there were any “new facts”. In the Umpire’s view, the applicant’s request for
reconsideration was an attempt to reargue his case.
[5]
Not
satisfied with that decision, the applicant, by letter dated April 1, 2006,
again sought reconsideration of Umpire Goulard’s July 8, 2005 decision. On May
24, 2006, the Chief Umpire Designate dismissed his request, also on the basis
that no “new facts” had been put forward to justify reconsideration. The
decision of the Chief Umpire Designate is succinct and it reads as follows:
This matter
was referred to me in my capacity as Chief Umpire Designate.
By letter
dated April 1st, 2006, the claimant submits a second application for
reconsideration of the Umpire's decision. The Umpire, who had heard the matter
on the merits, dealt with and denied a reconsideration of his decision on the
basis that the claimant had advanced no new facts as outlined in the
jurisprudence (Conita Chan, (1994), 178 N.R. 372).
I have
reviewed the submissions and I am satisfied there are no new facts allowing the
Umpire to reconsider his decision. In his letter requesting a reconsideration
of the Umpire's decision, the claimant refers to the Criminal Code and attempts
to reargue his case. Such is not the purpose of section 120 of the Act.
The request
for reconsideration is denied. No further reconsideration of this matter will
be entertained. If the claimant wishes to pursue this matter further, his only
recourse now available is to file an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal.
[6]
Although
the applicant seeks judicial review of all three decisions, the only decision
properly before us, in my view, is the one rendered by the Chief Umpire Designate,
since the earlier decisions were not challenged within the 30-day delay
prescribed by subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, nor was an
extension of time sought in regard thereto.
[7]
In any
event, the applicant has failed to convince me that there is any basis upon
which the July 8, 2005 decision ought to have been reconsidered. I therefore conclude
that neither the Chief Umpire Designate nor Umpire Goulard made any error in refusing
to reconsider that decision.
[8]
Finally,
with respect to Umpire Goulard’s decision of July 8, 2005, the applicant has
also failed to convince me that the Umpire made an error which would allow us
to intervene.
[9]
I would
therefore dismiss the application for judicial review with costs.
“M.
Nadon”
“I
agree.
Marc
Noël J.A.”
I
agree.
J.D.
Denis Pelletier J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-576-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: KIM
GEORGE CORBETT v. A.G.C.
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: September 13, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: September 19, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Kim George Corbett
|
THE
APPELLANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
|
Mark Heseltine
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content