Date: 20020225
Docket: A-460-00
Québec, Quebec, February 25, 2002
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARCO ALLARD
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
JUGDMENT
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20020225
Docket: A-460-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 70
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARCO ALLARD
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec on February 25, 2002
Judgment from the bench at Québec, Quebec on February 25, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20020225
Docket: A-460-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 70
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARCO ALLARD
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec
on February 25, 2002)
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] The plaintiff submitted that a recording is a transcript within the meaning of s. 68(3)(iii) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations ("the Regulations", C.R.C. 1978, c. 1576) and that the interpretation given to that provision by the umpire (C.U.B. 48 388, February 28, 2000) is wrong.
[2] Section 68(3)(iii) of the Regulations reads as follows:
| (3) Where an appeal referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is filed, the Commission shall, within 60 days,
(a) prepare a docket containing
. . .
(iii) the transcript, if any, of the evidence given during the appeal before the board of referees, and
. . .
[My underlining.]
|
|
(3) Lorsqu'un appel visé au paragraphe (1) ou (2) est déposé, la Commission, dans les 60 jours
(a) prépare un dossier contenant
. . .
(iii) la transcription, s'il en existe une, des témoignages recueillis lors de l'audition de l'appel par le conseil arbitral, et
. . .
[Je souligne.]
|
| |
|
|
[3] The plaintiff did not persuade the Court that the umpire erred in the interpretation he gave to that provision.
[4] Several statutes make a distinction between the recording of testimony and argument on the one hand, and their transcription on the other. This is true in particular of s. 46(1)(viii) of the Federal Court Act and ss. 184.1(3) and 487.1(2) of the Criminal Code. Further, in Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 301 v. Montreal (City), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 793, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed two distinct concepts when it used the words "transcript" and "recording" in the following passage:
In the absence of a statutory right to a recording, courts must determine whether the record before it [sic] allows it to properly dispose of the application for appeal or review. If so, the absence of a transcript will not violate the rules of natural justice. Where the statute does mandate a recording, however, natural justice may require a transcript.
[5] The duty imposed on the Commission under s. 68(3)(iii) deals only with the "transcript, if any".
[6] The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20020225
Docket: A-460-00
Between:
MARCO ALLARD
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
|
FEDERAL COURT APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: A-460-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARCO ALLARD
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 25, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: Desjardins J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A.
Noël J.A.
DATED: February 25, 2002
APPEARANCES:
François Leduc for the plaintiff
Paul Deschênes for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
LEDUC, DUCHESNE, BÉCOTTE ET ASS. for the plaintiff
Québec, Quebec
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE for the defendant
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content