Date: 20010919
Docket: A-168-00
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LUC CARTIER
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on Friday September 14, 2001
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, September 19, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20010919
Docket: A-168-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 274
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LUC CARTIER
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] The claimant was hired by Volkswagen St-Hyacinthe on October 5, 1998. His work consisted of washing cars and also driving customers home, in his employee's courtesy car. To do that, it was essential that the claimant have a valid driver's license.
[2] His driver's licence was suspended in January 1999 for failure to pay the fine for a traffic ticket issued in March 1998. At that time, the claimant was having financial problems that prevented him from paying the fine.
[3] The employer stated that he had considered helping the claimant by paying the fine for him. However, when the claimant handed him the ticket, he told him that he had received another one. The employer then concluded that he could not afford to "get involved in that." He found a replacement and the claimant was dismissed on February 5, 1999.
[4] The Commission denied the claimant benefits on the ground that he had lost his job because of his misconduct, under section 30 under the Employment Insurance Act (the "Act"),
S.C. 1996, c. 23.
[5] The board of referees that heard the case found that the infraction had been committed before the employment started and that the loss of the driver's license in the course of the employment was merely the result of the financial problems that the claimant was having and his inability to pay the fine.
[6] The Umpire affirmed the decision of the board of referees.
[7] I conclude that the board of referees and the Umpire erred by finding that the claimant's inability to pay was the cause of the loss of employment.
[8] To be entitled to benefits, a person must not merely establish a benefit period but must also prove that he or she meets the requirements of the Act and that no circumstances exist that could disqualify the person from receiving benefits (section 49 of the Act).
[9] Misconduct is a ground for disqualification under subsection 30(1) of the Act, which reads:
|
30.(1) A claimant is disqualified from receiving any benefits if the claimant lost any employment because of their misconduct or voluntarily left any employment without just cause ...
[Emphasis added]
|
30.(1) Le prestataire est exclu du bénéfice des prestations s'il perd un emploi en raison de son inconduite ou s'il quitte volontairement un emploi sans justification ...
|
[10] In Meunier v. C.E.I.C. (1997), 208 N.R. 377, at para. 2, this Court held that the misconduct referred to in the Act is not a mere breach by the employee of any duty related to his or her employment; rather "it is a breach of such scope that its author could normally foresee that it would be likely to result in his dismissal."
[11] In this case, the claimant knew that he could not keep his job without his driver's licence. He acknowledged in his statement that because his work involved the driver's licence, he could not keep his job when his licence had been taken away.
[12] It is settled law that there must be a causal relationship between the misconduct of which an employee is accused and his or her employment (Canada (Attorney General) v. Brissette (C.A.),
[1994] 1 C.F. 684 at p. 690; Canada (Attorney General) v. Nolet (March 19, 1992), A-517-91 (C.A); Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.), [1998] 1 C.F. 529, at para. 23).
[13] The board of referees and the Umpire found that the claimant's inability to pay the fine had caused the loss of employment. However, the evidence was that the employer was willing to pay the fine for the claimant but that he changed his mind when he learned that the claimant had received a second ticket.
[14] The cause of the loss of employment was therefore not the claimant's inability to pay, since his employer was prepared to pay it for him, but in fact the second ticket.
[15] The board of referees and the Umpire disregarded that important piece of evidence. According to the employer's statement, he would have helped the claimant and the claimant would not have lost his employment had there been only one ticket.
[16] I would allow the application for judicial review, set aside the decision of the Umpire and refer the case back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire designated by him for determination on the
basis that the claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits because of his misconduct, under section 30 of the Act.
Alice Desjardins
J.A.
I concur.
Robert Décary J.A.
I concur.
Marc Noël J.A.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
Date: 20010919
Dossier: A-168-00
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LUC CARTIER
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire designated by him for determination on the basis that the claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits because of his misconduct, under section 30 of the Act.
Alice Desjardins
J.A.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-168-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney General of Canada v. Luc Cartier
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 14, 2001
DELIVERED: September 19, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF: Desjardins J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A.
Noël J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Suzon Létourneau FOR THE APPLICANT
Luc Cartier FOR HIMSELF
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Luc Cartier
St-Jude, Quebec FOR HIMSELF
Email this Content