[1] We all agree that the Umpire was justified in intervening and making the decision that the Board of Referees should have made, given that the Board of Referees failed to consider relevant and significant evidence supporting the allegations of the applicant's misconduct.

[2] After reviewing the evidence, the Umpire determined that there could be no doubt that by his absences and tardiness, the applicant showed a lack of concern with respect to his employer.

[3] Accordingly, in the Umpire's opinion, the Commission's decision to the effect that the applicant had lost his employment because of his misconduct should be reestablished.

[4] In our opinion, in so finding, the Umpire did not err in any way that would warrant our intervention. Further, it is obvious to us that the Board of Referees, in finding as it did, did not in any way understand the concept of misconduct supporting the Commission's decision.

[5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

"M. Nadon"

J.A.

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-629-04

STYLE OF CAUSE: Kristopher Parsons v. Attorney General of Canada

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: June 29, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (Richard C.J., Noël J.A., Nadon J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH (BY): Nadon J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Pierre Étienne Daignault

Louis Michaud

FOR THE APPLICANT

Alexandre Kaufman

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

CLINIQUE JURIDIQUE POPULAIRE DE PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL INC.

Hawkesbury, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

John H. Sim, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

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.

Do not display this message anymore