[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Umpire dated October 15, 2002, dismissing an appeal by the Commission. The Commission had denied the claimant benefits on the grounds that he had left his employment without just cause and that, in any event, he was not available for work during the relevant period.

[2] The Board of Referees found that the claimant was eligible for benefits, thereby rejecting the two grounds on which the Commission had denied benefits. The Commission appealed to the Umpire on the sole issue of voluntarily leaving employment.

[3] Unfortunately, the Umpire did not address this issue. His decision to dismiss the Commission's appeal deals only with the question of availability; yet the Commission had specifically acknowledged that the Board of Referees' decision was well founded on this issue.

[4] Ordinarily, the matter should be referred back to the Umpire to address the issue of voluntary leaving. The applicant, nonetheless, asks that we decide this issue, stating that the underlying facts are not in dispute.

[5] These facts reveal that the claimant worked at the Comfort Inn in Chicoutimi and that he wanted to take a course to complete his education. Since the employer was unable to give him a work schedule that would have allowed him to take this course, the claimant decided to leave his employment.

[6] The Board of Referees found that the claimant had chosen the most reasonable alternative in the circumstances and had not, therefore, voluntarily left his employment within the meaning of paragraph 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act.

[7] It is this part of the decision that was challenged by the Commission in its appeal to the Umpire. The applicant argued before us that, had the Umpire addressed this issue, he would, of necessity, have found that the claimant did not have just cause to leave his employment.

[8] Indeed, the case law from this Court is consistent in holding that leaving one's employment to take a course that is not authorized by the Commission does not constitute just cause under paragraph 29(c) of the Act (see, inter alia, Canada (Attorney General) v. Martel (1994), 175 N.R. 275, September 28, 1994; Canada (Attorney General) v. Stevens (1996), 195 N.R. 392, March 25, 1996; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mancheron, 2001 FCA 174, [2001] F.C.J. No. 880 (QL), May 30, 2001; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bois, 2001 FCA 175, [2001] F.C.J. No. 878 (QL), May 30, 2001; Canada (Attorney General) v. Tourangeau, 2001 FCA 293, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1550 (QL), October 9, 2001; Canada v. Wall (2002), 293 N.R. 338, June 27, 2003; Canada (Attorney General) v. Lessard, 2002 FCA 469, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1655, November 25, 2002; Canada (Attorney General) v. Shaw, 2002 FCA 325, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1290 (QL).

[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review should be allowed, the decision of the Umpire set aside and the matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or to an Umpire designated by him for redetermination on the basis that the Commission's appeal should be allowed and the claimant disqualified from receiving benefits because he left his employment without just cause.

"Marc Noël"

J.A.

Certified true translation

Diane C. Skiejka, BCL, LLB

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-20-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v.

LUC BÉDARD

PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 21, 2004

CORAM: RICHARD C.J.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

NOËL J.A.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.

DATED: JANUARY 21, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Pauline Leroux FOR THE APPLICANT

Luc Bédard FOR HIMSELF

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Department of Justice Canada FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

Luc Bédard FOR HIMSELF

Chicoutimi, Quebec

You are here

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bédard, 2004 FCA 21

Citations2004 FCA 21

Case tabs

Citations
2004 FCA 21