Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030430

                                                                                                                                         Docket: A-736-01

Québec, Quebec, April 30, 2003

CORAM:        DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

YANNICK VÉZINA

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

JUDGMENT

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

                        "Robert Décary"

                                   J.A.

Certified true translation

Suzanne Gauthier, C.Tr., LL.L.


                                                 Date: 20030430

                                              Docket: A-736-01

Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 198

CORAM:        DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

YANNICK VÉZINA

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, April 30, 2003.

Judgment delivered at Québec, Quebec, April 30, 2003.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.


                                                 Date: 20030430

                                              Docket: A-736-01

Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 198

CORAM:        DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

YANNICK VÉZINA

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec

April 30, 2003)

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.


[1]         Notwithstanding the excellent argument by Mr. Jacob and some errors by the Umpire concerning the factual data in this case, we are satisfied that the Umpire reached the right conclusion as to the applicant's lack of availability for work, in view of the personal restrictions that he imposed at this level as a result of his return to school. As this Court stated in Attorney General of Canada v. Bertrand, A-613-81:

The question of availability is an objective one - whether a claimant is sufficiently available for suitable employment to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits - and it cannot depend on the particular reasons for the restrictions on availability however these may evoke sympathetic concern. If the contrary were true, availability would be a completely varying requirement depending on the view taken of the particular reasons in each case for the relative lack of it.

[2]         The Umpire rightly concluded that the decision of the Board of Referees erred in law concerning the concept of availability and that he was then entitled to intervene.

[3]         The application for judicial review will be dismissed.

                       "Gilles Létourneau"

                                   J.A.

Certified true translation

Suzanne Gauthier, C.Tr., LL.L.


             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

Date: 20030430

                                                           Docket: A-736-01

Between:

YANNICK VÉZINA

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                 A-736-01

STYLE:                                      YANNICK VÉZINA

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:         Québec, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:            April 30, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Létourneau J.A.

CONCURRING:                    Décary J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

DATED:                                    April 30, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Marlène Jacob                                                     for the applicant

Pauline Leroux                                                     for the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

PROULX, MÉNARD, MILLARD, CAUX

Québec, Quebec                                                               for the applicant

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Montréal, Quebec                                                             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.