Lau v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2006 FCA 299

Date: 20060911

Docket: A-91-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 299

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

SHARLOW J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

MING LAU

Applicant

and

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 11, 2006.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 11, 2006.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                         SHARLOW J.A.

Date: 20060911

Docket: A-91-05

Citation: 2006 FCA  299

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

SHARLOW J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

MING LAU

Applicant

and

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 11, 2006)

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]   This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an Umpire dated February 4, 2005 (CUB 61630A) in which he denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the dismissal of his appeal.

[2]   The applicant had applied for employment insurance benefits in 1995. He was outside of Canada from November 8, 1995 to February 28, 1996 and did not inform the Employment Insurance Commission as he was obliged to do. He had received benefits for this period, but the Commission found him to be ineligible for those benefits, and ordered him to repay them. The applicant was also penalized for knowingly making false and misleading statements because he had failed to report his absence from Canada.

[3]   The applicant appealed to the Board of Referees, which denied his appeal. The applicant then appealed to an Umpire. That appeal was dismissed on August 30, 2004. In December of 2004, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Umpire’s decision on the basis of his belief that a customs officer had unlawfully opened his mail and informed the Commission of his absence from Canada, thereby breaching the Privacy Act. The applicant’s request for reconsideration was denied on the basis that the he had presented no new facts to the Umpire to warrant reconsideration under section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act. The applicant now applies to this Court for judicial review.

[4]   Having reviewed the record and having considered the applicant’s submissions, we can find no legal or other error in the Umpire’s decision that warrants the intervention of this Court. We agree with the respondent that the applicant presented no new facts to the Umpire. We are satisfied that the Umpire properly denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration under section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act.

[5]   This application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.

"K. Sharlow"