Date: 20100323
Docket: A-290-09
Citation:
2010 FCA 83
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.
NADON
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ROGER OUIMET
Respondent
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on March 23,
2010.
Judgment delivered
from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 23, 2010.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON
J.A.
Date: 20100323
Docket: A-290-09
Citation:
2010 FCA 83
CORAM: BLAIS C.J.
NADON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ROGER OUIMET
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 23, 2010)
NADON J.A.
[1]
The respondent lost his employment with J.P.
Lessard Canada Inc. on March 23, 2007.
[2]
From May 7 to May 16, 2007, he held
new employment with EPM Mecanic 2982897 Canada Inc.
[3]
A benefit period was established by the
Employment Insurance Commission (the “Commission”) beginning June 24,
2007.
[4]
On October 1, 2007, the respondent asked
the Commission to antedate his claim for benefits to March 23, 2007, a
request that the Commission refused on the ground that he had not shown, within
the meaning of subsection 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act, that
there was good cause for the delay throughout the period.
[5]
The Board of Referees found that the respondent
had good cause for the delay in making his initial claim for benefits, and it allowed
his appeal.
[6]
The Umpire dismissed the Commission’s appeal, determining
that the Board of Referees had made no reviewable error.
[7]
We are of the opinion that the respondent lacked
good cause for the entire period of the delay in making his claim for benefits.
More specifically, the evidence leaves no doubt that the claimant lacked good
cause for the delay for the period from May 16 to June 26, 2007.
[8]
Regarding the reasons advanced by the respondent
for the delay, that is, that he had not thought that he was entitled to
benefits after losing his employment with J.P. Lessard on March 23, 2007; that
he had been guaranteed new employment, which he held from May 7 to
May 16, 2007; that he had had to work for three weeks before receiving a
record of employment from EPM Mecanic; and that he was again seeking
employment, we are satisfied, in light of the evidence on file and the case law
(see Canada (Attorney General) v. Smith (1993), 153 N.R. 317,
paragraph 4; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mehdinasab, 2009 FCA 282,
paragraphs 5 and following; Canada (Attorney General) v. McBride,
2009 FCA 1, paragraph 6; Canada (Attorney General) v. Scott, 2008 FCA
145, paragraphs 9 to 12; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Brace,
2008 FCA 118, paragraphs 8 to 11) that these are not good causes for his
delay in making his initial claim for benefits.
[9]
Under these circumstances, the Board of Referees
could in no way conclude that the respondent had good cause for the delay and, consequently,
the Umpire erred by failing to intervene.
[10]
The application for judicial review will therefore
be allowed with costs, the Umpire’s decision is set aside and the matter is referred
back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for
redetermination on the basis that the respondent has not shown that there was good
cause for the delay in making his initial claim for benefits.
“Marc Nadon”
Certified true
translation
Tu-Quynh Trinh
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-290-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: A.G.C.
v. Roger Ouimet
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 23, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Blais
C.J.
Nadon J.A.
Trudel
J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Nadon J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Pauline Leroux
Toni Abi Nasr
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Gilbert
Nadon
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Ouellet,
Nadon, Cyr, Cousineau, Gagnon, Tremblay
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content