Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20060322

Docket: A-257-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 120

CORAM:        DESJARDINS J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

DENIS FORGUES

Applicant

and

STEVE MUCKAL ET AL.

Respondents

Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 15, 2006.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 22, 2006.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:                                                                 LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                 DESJARDINS J.A.

                                                                                                                                 NOËL J.A.


Date: 20060322

Docket: A-257-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 120

CORAM:        DESJARDINS J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

DENIS FORGUES

Applicant

and

STEVE MUCKAL ET AL.

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

[1]                This is an application for judicial review of an employment insurance decision by an umpire. In his decision, the umpire affirmed the board of referees' determination to the effect that the applicant was not entitled to employment insurance benefits because he had lost his employment as a result of his misconduct.

[2]                According to the evidence relied on by the board of referees and the umpire in their respective decisions, the applicant made verbal threats against the person in charge of the service and made offensive and hurtful remarks about his boss and the secretary. The dismissal occurred after warnings were served on the applicant, to no avail.

[3]                The applicant is challenging the umpire's findings of fact regarding the threats and offensive remarks in that he is denying the events alleged against him. Given that there was evidence before the umpire supporting the findings of fact that he made, and as those findings are not wrong or unreasonable, the Court has no reason or power to intervene against this aspect of the umpire's decision.

[4]                With respect to the issue of whether the alleged acts amount to misconduct within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (Act), I am satisfied that the umpire was correct in law on the notion of misconduct and did not err in any way in his application to the facts in this case.

[5]                The umpire stated that, in his opinion, the decision by the board of referees, while correct, was not sufficiently reasoned. He then proceeded "to give the decision that should have been given": see the umpire's decision at page 10 of the respondents' record.

[6]                A careful reading of the umpire's decision indicates that he did not set aside the decision of the board of referees, but rather was concerned with providing the reasons that the board of referees should have given in support of the decision. Hence the dismissal of the claimant's appeal against the decision by the board of referees.

[7]                Assuming that the decision by the board of referees was not sufficiently reasoned within the meaning of subsection 114(3) of the Act, the umpire had the power under section 117 to provide the necessary reasons in support of the decision by the board of referees, thereby giving the reasoned decision that it should have given.

[8]                The application for judicial review was improperly brought against the respondents Steve Muckal et al. The Attorney General of Canada must be substituted in their place as respondent in accordance with section 303 of the Federal Courts Rules. Thestyle of cause of the docket and the pleadings shall therefore be amended accordingly to reflect the respondent's substitution.

[9]                For these reasons, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed without costs, the substituted respondent having waived them.

"Gilles Létourneau"

J.A.

" I concur.

            Alice Desjardins J.A."

"I concur.

            Marc Noël J.A."

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                      A-257-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                       DENIS FORGUES v. STEVE MUCKAL et al.

PLACE OF HEARING:                                 Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                   March 15, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:                    LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                  DESJARDINS J.A.

                                                                        NOËL J.A.

DATE OF REASONS:                                   March 22, 2006

APPEARANCES:

Denis Forgues

FOR THE APPLICANT

Carole Bureau

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE RESPONDENTS


Date: 20060322

Docket: A-257-05

Ottawa, Ontario, March 22, 2006

CORAM:        DESJARDINS J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

DENIS FORGUES

Applicant

and

STEVE MUCKAL ET AL.

Respondents

JUDGMENT

            The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs.

"Alice Desjardins"

J.A.

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.