Date: 19990226
Docket: A-186-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, FEBRUARY 26, 1999
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN: JEAN-GUY TURCOTTE,
Applicant,
AND
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
- and -
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondents.
J U D G M E N T
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19990226
Docket: A-186-98
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-GUY TURCOTTE,
Applicant,
AND
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
- and -
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondents.
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Friday, February 26, 1999
Judgment from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on Friday, February 26, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-186-98
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-GUY TURCOTTE,
Applicant,
AND
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
- and -
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondents.
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec
on Friday, February 26, 1999)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] By an application for judicial review the plaintiff objected to the umpire's decision on the ground that the amounts of the overpayments were improperly calculated to his detriment and that the amounts of the penalties imposed did not take into account the extenuating circumstances indicated in the record.
[2] The umpire, and the board of referees before him, concluded that the earnings reported by the claimant were determined and apportioned in accordance with ss. 57 and 58 of the Regulations. They were entitled to reach this conclusion on the basis of the evidence before them. In particular, it appears to the Court that the Commission was entitled to use the hourly rate reported by the claimant to determine his earnings.
[3] The plaintiff further argued that the administrative penalty imposed on the claimants by the Commission and the board of referees should be proportional to what was imposed on the employer in criminal proceedings as a result of the charges laid against it.
[4] For a host of obvious reasons, such as the delays which might result in the administrative process if it was necessary to wait until the criminal proceedings against an employer were completed, the fact that a criminal penalty imposed on an employer might be very punitive and lead to an undesirable increase in the administrative penalty imposed on the claimants and the difficulty of quantifying the stigma of a criminal conviction or a term of imprisonment received by an employer, such an argument is inadmissible.
[5] As Marceau J.A. said in The Attorney General of Canada and Cou Lai,1 we are not in a criminal law context but in an administrative law one. It does not seem desirable to import the principles applicable to one into the other.
[6] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. A copy of these reasons will be included in cases A-184-98, A-182-98, A-181-98 and A-180-98.
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: A-186-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Jean-Guy Turcotte v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission et al. |
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 26, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Létourneau J. A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Desjardins J. A.
Noël J. A.
APPEARANCES:
Jean-Guy Ouellet for the applicant
Carole Bureau for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean-Guy Ouellet for the applicant
Campeau, Ouellet & Associés
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 Case A-525-97, June 25, 1998 (F.C.A.).
Email this Content