Date: 20040119
Docket: A-669-02
Citation: 2004 FCA 18
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
NANCY LODER
Respondent
Heard at Québec, Quebec, on January 19, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Québec (Quebec), January 19, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RICHARD C.J.
Date: 20040119
Docket: A-669-02
Citation: 2004 FCA 18
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
NANCY LODER
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on January 19, 2004)
[1] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (the Commission) found that the respondent was not available for employment under section 18(a) of the Employment Insurance Act because she had initially quit her job to attend a course without leave of the Commission and because she had placed restrictions on the wage that she would be willing to accept for full time employment (applicant's record, p. 64).
[2] The Board of Referees allowed the respondent's appeal on the basis that she had "a history of working while in school" and was "actively seeking full time work" (ibid., p. 64).
[3] The Umpire confirmed the decision of the Board.
[4] Whatever might be said with respect to the Board's finding of a personal "history of working while in school" when such history is only two months long (in Landry v. Canada (1992), 152 N.R. 164 (F.C.A.), this Court was concerned with a work record established by the claimant "over the years"), we are of the view that the Board, and subsequently the Umpire, erred in not addressing the second ground alleged by the Commission, i.e. that the claimant had placed restrictions on her availability.
[5] The absence of personal conditions that might unduly limit the chance of returning to the labour market has been determined by this Court to be a factor that must be considered in reaching a conclusion with respect to availability (Faucher v. Canada (1997), 215 N.R. 314 (F.C.A.)).
[6] In the present case, there is clear evidence that the claimant would not accept full time work absent a certain wage and neither the Board nor the Umpire found any fault with the Commission's conclusion on that point.
[7] 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 Commission's appeal from the decision of the Board of Referees should be allowed and the decision of the Commission restored.
[8] No costs were sought.
« R. Richard »
Chief Justice
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-669-02
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. NANCY LODER
PLACE OF HEARING: QUEBEC, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 19, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
DATED: JANUARY 19, 2004
APPEARANCES:
|
Me Susan L. Inglis |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
Mrs Nancy Loder |
ON HER OWN BEHALF |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Halifax, Nova-Scotia |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
|
|