Date: 20040324
Docket: A-417-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 129
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT S.C. 1996, c. 23
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FEDERAL COURT ACT, R.S. 1985, c. F-7
BETWEEN:
SONIA CAMPBELL
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on Wednesday, March 24th, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 24th, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
Date: 20040324
Docket: A-417-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 129
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT S.C. 1996, c. 23
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FEDERAL COURT ACT, R.S. 1985, c. F-7
BETWEEN:
SONIA CAMPBELL
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 24, 2004.)
[1] While it is not entirely clear from its decision, it appears the Board of Referees was of the opinion that the applicant was terminated for cause, that is, failing to show up for work.
[2] The applicant says she left her employment because there was insufficient work. The evidence obtained from the employer was contradictory. Evidence from the individual who was
present when the employment relationship ended was that the applicant was asked if she would be returning to work and the applicant said no. The evidence two years later from the comptroller of the employer who was not personally present at the time the employment relationship ended was that the applicant had been terminated.
[3] We are unable to determine from its decision whether the Board of Referees recognized the inconsistency in the employer's evidence and if so, how they reconciled the inconsistency. In the absence of any explanation, we must conclude that the Board reached its decision without regard to the material before it contrary to paragraph 115(2)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act.
[4] The Umpire erred in failing to note this deficiency in the reasons of the Board of Referees.
[5] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Umpire will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for determination on the basis that the applicant's appeal from the decision of the Board of Referees should be allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Board of Referees for redetermination.
[6] The applicant will be entitled to costs of $1,500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and GST.
"M.E. Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-417-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SONIA CAMPBELL v. AGC
PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, AB
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 24, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Zoran Bozic
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Ms. Margaret McCabe
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Braul Spencer & McEvoy - Edmonton, AB
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada - Ottawa, ON
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content