Date: 19980527
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-69-97
BETWEEN:
RÉJEANNE MORIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Docket: A-248-97
BETWEEN:
BERNARD OUELLET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Docket: A-249-97
BETWEEN:
BRUNO OUELLET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec,
| on Wednesday, May 27, 1998) |
MARCEAU J.A.
[1] These three applications for judicial review were filed at the same time. In fact, they were directly related to each other as they came from members of the same family who were in similar situations, and put forward similar arguments in order to challenge a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada. It could be said there were two parts to this judgment. First, the appeal by the three applicants of the Minister of National Revenue"s first decision dated May 3, 1995, concerning their entitlement to benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act , was dismissed. Second, the Minister"s second decision dated June 1, 1995, declaring the employment of the two male applicants in 1994 not to be insurable, was upheld.
[2] The dismissal of the appeals of the May 3, 1995 decision affecting the three applicants was based on the fact that the notices of appeal, dated August 10, 1995, were filed out of time and were invalid. At issue was the strict application of subsection 70(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act1 which states that an appeal from a decision by the Minister, as in the case at bar, must be submitted by the person affected within ninety days after the decision is communicated to him or her, unless the person had applied for and been granted an extension of the time before it expired. As this Court has decided on more than one occasion that the time limit under subsection 70(1) is mandatory and that the actual jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada depended on it,2 the impugned decision appeared to be irreproachable.
[3] Nevertheless, counsel for the applicants ably endeavoured to maintain that there might be a possibility of saving her clients" remedy, and we even attempted to explore one of her arguments with her, no doubt prompted by the fact that the strict and rigid application of the rules of limitation is never an easy exercise for a court of law. The gist of this argument was that the impugned decision in the instant case could be piggybacked on the other decision which affected two of the same parties, which would have delayed the cutoff date of the ninety day limitation in relation to the May decision until June 1st.
[4] After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to give effect to counsel"s suggestion without distorting the limitations in the Act. Despite the fact that the two decisions are connected, they are so different from each other that consolidating them, for the purpose of the time limit for the appeal, would be purely artificial.
[5] The Minister"s decision dated June 1, 1995 which declared the applicant"s employment in 1994 not to be insurable was upheld based on an assessment of the facts of the situation, but the respondent recognizes that this assessment was in error. The respondent concedes that the application for review of this decision, which was filed within the time limit, should be allowed.
[6] We must accordingly dismiss the application for review in part and allow it in part (however unusual, if not irregular, this may be).
Louis Marceau
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19980527
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-69-97
BETWEEN:
RÉJEANNE MORIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Docket: A-248-97
BETWEEN:
BERNARD OUELLET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Docket: A-249-97
BETWEEN:
BRUNO OUELLET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec on Wednesday, May 27, 1998.
Judgment delivered from the bench on Wednesday, May 27, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DELIVERED BY: MARCEAU J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980527
Docket: A-69-97
BETWEEN:
RÉJEANNE MORIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Docket: A-248-97
BETWEEN:
BERNARD OUELLET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Docket: A-249-97
BETWEEN:
BRUNO OUELLET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO: A-69-97; A-248-97; A-249-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Réjeanne Morin v. Minister of National Revenue |
| Bertrand Ouellet v. Minister of National Revenue |
| Bruno Ouellet v. Minister of National Revenue |
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Québec
DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:Marceau, Desjardins, Létourneau, JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Marceau J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Thérèse Montpas for the applicant
Marie-Andrée Legault for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Thérèse Montpas
Québec, Quebec for the applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the respondent
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 This subsection reads as follows:
70. (1) The Commission or a person affected by a determination by, or a decision on an appeal to, the Minister under section 61 may, within ninety days after the determination or decision is communicated to him, or within such longer time as the Tax Court of Canada on application made to it within those ninety days may allow, appeal from the determination or decision to that Court in the manner prescribed.
2 See inter alia: Canada (A.G.) v. Blais (1985), 64 N.R. 378 (F.C.A.) at page 380 and Canada (A.G.) v. Vaillancourt, an unreported decision of this Court dated May 14, 1992, docket number A-639-91.
Email this Content