A-611-96
QUÉBEC, QUEBEC, THE 2nd DAY OF MAY, 1997
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Plaintiff
- AND -
MARIO SIMONEAU,
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The application is allowed, the decision of the umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to an umpire to be appointed by the chief umpire, with instructions to allow the Commission"s appeal. It is recommended to the Commission that it write off the overpayment.
| James K. Hugessen |
| J.A. |
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
A-611-96
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant
- AND -
MARIO SIMONEAU,
Respondent
Hearing held in Québec, Quebec, Friday, May 2, 1997.
Judgment pronounced at the hearing, May 2, 1997.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
A-611-96
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant
- AND -
MARIO SIMONEAU,
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Pronounced at the hearing in Québec,
Friday, May 2, 1997)
DÉCARY J.A.
The respondent"s employer ordered that the site where the respondent was working be shut down because of a "labour union dispute". The employer took this action in the midst of a labour dispute that had been going on for several months between employers and employees in the construction industry over the terms and conditions of their next collective agreement.
The Commission, applying subsection 31(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, ruled that the respondent was not entitled to receive benefit for the duration of the work stoppage, which, it said, was the result of the labour dispute. Both the board of referees and the umpire expressed the opinion that the work stoppage had not been caused by the labour dispute and that consequently subsection 31(1) was inapplicable.
The existence of a causal connection between a labour dispute and a work stoppage is a question of law. This Court, in J.D. Laval Dallaire et al. v. Employment and Immigration Commission,1 has already held, in similar circumstances, that there was indeed a causal connection between the labour dispute and the work stoppage. Thus both the board of referees and the umpire erred in law when they concluded that there was no such connection.
The application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the umpire will be set aside and the matter will be referred back for redetermination by an umpire to be appointed by the chief umpire, with instructions to allow the Commission's appeal and to restore the Commission"s decision.
In the particular circumstances of this case, such as the fact that the respondent had ceased to be unemployed several weeks prior to the work stoppage of which he was the victim, that he found work a few hundred kilometres from his domicile and that he had been successful before the board of referees and the umpire, we take the liberty of suggesting to the Commission that this is a proper case for the exercise of its discretion under section 60 of the Regulations in relation to writing off wrongly paid benefits.
| Robert Décary |
| J.A. |
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
Federal Court of Appeal
Court File No. A-611-96
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Applicant
- and -
MARIO SIMONEAU,
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
| FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL |
| NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD |
| FILE NO. A-611-96 |
| STYLE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, |
| Applicant |
| - and - |
| MARIO SIMONEAU. |
| Respondent |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Québec |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT |
| OF THE COURT BY:Hugessen J.A. |
| Décary J.A. |
| Chevalier, D.J.A. |
| DATED: May 2, 1997 |
| APPEARANCES: |
| Dominique GagnéFor the applicant |
| Mario SimoneauFor the respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: |
| DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
| Complexe Guy-Favreau |
| 200 boul. René-Lévesque Ouest |
| Tour Est, 5e étage |
| Montréal, Quebec |
| H2Z 1X4 For the applicant |
Mario Simoneau
334, rue Principale
C.P. 505
Rivière Portneuf, Quebec
G0T 1P0 For the respondent
__________________1 A-825-95, September 18, 1996, leave to appeal denied by the Supreme Court of Canada on April 24, 1997, CSC 25667.