Date: 20060517
Docket: A-299-05
Citation:
2006 FCA 184
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
NADON
J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PETER
J. LANDRY
Respondent
Heard at Fredericton,
New Brunswick, on May 17,
2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 17, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Pelletier
J.A.
Date: 20060517
Docket: A-299-05
Citation: 2006
FCA 184
CORAM: RICHARD
C.J.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PETER J.
LANDRY
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 17,
2006)
PELLETIER J.A.
[1]
In
2000, St. John Shipbuilding closed its doors. Its employees, represented by
four unions, were permanently laid off. After two years, the employer applied
to the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board for an order terminating the
union’s bargaining rights.
[2]
The
Board granted the order but suspended its effect until the employer and the
unions reached agreement on a closure pay plan.
[3]
A
closure pay plan was in fact implemented and each of the four applicants
received an amount from that plan.
[4]
The
Commission took the position that the amounts received were income for the
purpose of the Employment Insurance Act S.C. 1996 c. 23 and that
pursuant to s. 36 of the Regulations, it was to be allocated from the date of
separation, as identified by the Commission.
[5]
The
applicants challenged the Commission’s position before the Board of Referees
which held that the amounts received were not income. As a result, it did not
go on to consider the question of allocation. The Commission appealed to the
Umpire who reversed the Board of Referees and held that the amounts in question
were income from employment for the purposes of the Act. However, the Umpire
went on to find that the amounts were to be allocated from the date of lay-off
and not from the date of separation as identified by the Commission.
[6]
The
Commission challenges this finding by way of an application for judicial review
before this Court. It argues that since there were vestigial elements of the
employment relationship in existence until the date of the decertification
order, separation did not occur until that date. The Commission argues that
where there is a difference between the date of lay-off and the date of
separation, it is entitled to allocate amounts received as of the later date.
[7]
We
all agreed that the application for judicial review must be dismissed. The
trigger for eligibility for benefits is a cessation of work and an interruption
of earnings, as set in section 7 of the Act. Since allocation is relevant to
the calculation of the amount of benefits payable and the commencement of the
benefit period, it is logical that it should coincide with the date of
eligibility. Whether the events which give rise to eligibility occurs as a
result of lay-off or separation appears to us to be immaterial. The relevant
date is the date of eligibility.
[8]
For
those reasons we are of the view that the Umpire’s decision was not only
reasonable, but correct.
[9]
We
would therefore dismiss the four applications for judicial review, without
costs in the cases of Mr. Burns and Mr. Landry and with one set of costs in the
cases of Mr. Walsh and Mr. McKee.
[10]
A
copy of these reasons will be placed in each of files numbered A-300-05,
A-250-05, A-301-05 and A-299-05.
"J.
Pelletier"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-299-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney
General of Canada and Peter J.
Landry
PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING: May 17, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Pelletier J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Pelletier
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Melissa Cameron
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
--
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Department of Justice
Halifax, Nova Scotia
|
FOR THE
APPLICANT
|
|
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content