Date:
20130624
Docket:
A-539-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 166
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DANIEL
MACLEOD
Respondent
Heard
at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 24, 2013.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June
24, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY: DAWSON J.A.
Date:
20130624
Docket:
A-539-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 166
CORAM: SHARLOW
J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DANIEL
MACLEOD
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 24, 2013)
DAWSON J.A.
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Umpire (CUB 79998).
The Umpire upheld the decision of the Board of Referees which found that the
respondent, Mr. MacLeod, had established good cause for his five-year
delay in applying for employment insurance benefits.
[2]
On
this application the Attorney General asserts that the Umpire erred in two
respects. First, the Attorney General argues that, although the Umpire
acknowledged that the respondent had to demonstrate good cause for his delay in
applying for benefits, the Umpire erred by failing to articulate the legal test
associated with this requirement. Second, the Attorney General submits that the
Umpire’s assessment of the evidence was unreasonable.
[3]
For
the following two reasons we have not been persuaded that the Umpire erred as
alleged.
[4]
First,
it is settled law that the reasons need not include all of the jurisprudence or
other details a reviewing court might prefer to see. This does not, by itself,
impugn the validity of either the reasons or the result reached under a
reasonableness analysis. It is sufficient if the reasons allow a reviewing
court to understand why the tribunal made its decision and to determine whether
the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes (Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708, at paragraph 16).
[5]
In
the present case, after stating that properly supported medical reasons can
constitute good cause for delay in making a claim for benefits, the Umpire
cited seven prior decisions made by Umpires. In five of the cited decisions the
Umpire expressly set out the test for good cause for delay (CUBS 12100, 13378,
14326, 16333, and 19161). In the sixth cited decision the Umpire expressly
applied the correct test (CUB 71716). In this circumstance, we have not been
satisfied that the Umpire failed to direct his mind to the correct test.
[6]
Second,
while the Attorney General argues that the Umpire failed to give proper
consideration to the respondent’s employment record and to his history of dealings
with the Commission, the Umpire referred to this evidence in his reasons. The
Umpire simply did not give this evidence the weight the Commission argued it
should have. In our view, the Umpire’s assessment of the evidence was within
the range of acceptable outcomes and so cannot be said to be unreasonable.
[7]
For
these reasons, despite the able submissions of counsel for the Attorney
General, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. The applicant
did not seek costs.
“Eleanor R. Dawson”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-539-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney
General of Canada v. Daniel MacLeod
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: June 24, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (SHARLOW, DAWSON, STRATAS JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: DAWSON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Sarah Drodge
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
|
No appearance.
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
|
|
Email this Content