Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Canada (Attorney General) v. Gauthier

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2006-01-26
Neutral citation 2006 FCA 40
File numbers A-552-03

Decision Content

 

Date: 20060126

Docket: A-552-03

Citation: 2006 FCA 40

 

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Applicant

and

MÉLANIE GAUTHIER

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on January 26, 2006.

Judgement delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, on January 26, 2006.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT BY:                               LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

 

 

Date: 20060126

Docket: A-552-03

Citation: 2006 FCA 40

 

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Applicant

and

MÉLANIE GAUTHIER

Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, on January 26, 2006.)

 

 

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.:

 

[1]               There is no doubt that, in our view, on the basis of the evidence on record, the respondent left her full-time employment to return to school. She reported being available for work but she restricted her availability to weekends: see the respondent’s statements at pages 24, 30, 31 and 32, as well as that of the employer at page 34 of the applicant’s record.

 

[2]               This Court’s case law is both clear and consistent. Voluntarily leaving one’s employment to return to school, except for programs of instruction authorized by the Employment Insurance Commission, is a ground for disqualification from Employment Insurance benefits under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (Act): see Attorney General of Canada v. Bédard, 2004 FCA 21; Canada (Attorney General) v. Laughland, 2003 FCA 129; Canada (Attorney General) v. Lessard, 2002 FCA 469.

 

[3]               Likewise, a person who unduly restricts his or her availability, or as in this case, restricts it to weekends, is not entitled to benefits under section 18 of the Act and section 32 of the Employment Insurance Regulation, SOR/96-332. The latter provision excludes Saturdays and Sundays from the definition of “working day” for the puposes of section 18:

 

32. For the purposes of section 18 of the Act, a working day is any day of the week except Saturday and Sunday.

 

 

 

18. A claimant is not entitled to be paid benefits for a working day in a benefit period for which the claimant fails to prove that on that day the claimant was

(a) capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment

(b) unable to work because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, and that the claimant would otherwise be available for work; or

(c) engaged in jury service.

32. Pour l’application de l’article 18 de la Loi, est un jour ouvrable chaque jour de la semaine sauf le samedi et le dimanche.

 

 

18. Le prestataire n’est pas admissible au bénéfice des prestations pour tout jour ouvrable d’une période de prestations pour lequel il ne peut prouver qu’il était, ce jour-là :

a) soit capable de travailler et disponible à cette fin et incapable d’obtenir un emploi convenable;

b) soit incapable de travailler par suite d’une maladie, d’une blessure ou d’une mise en quarantaine prévue par règlement et aurait été sans cela disponible pour travailler;

c) soit en train d’exercer les fonctions de juré.

 

 

[4]               For example, Attorney General of Canada v. Gagnon, 2005 FCA 321 and Canada (Attorney General) v. Primard, 2003 FCA 349 clearly illustrate the interrelation between the two provisions and establish the principle of unavailability in such circumstances.

 

[5]               We are aware that cases such as the respondent’s elicit sympathy and that the Board of Referees and the Umpire are strongly tempted to do away with the rule of law and render a decision based on fairness, but they must be careful not to fall into such a trap, as the claimant will have to bear the costs of an application for judicial review which this Court will have no choice but to allow. Happily for the respondent, the applicant graciously waived its right to costs.

 

[6]               For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed without costs, the decision rendered by the Umpire will be quashed, and the case will be returned to the Chief Umpire or his designate for redetermination, taking into consideration that the respondent was both disqualified and disentitled from receiving benefits.

 

 

“Gilles Létourneau”

J.A.

 

 

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                A-552-03

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v.

                                                                  MÉLANIE GAUTHIER

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                          Québec, Quebec

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                            January 26, 2006

 

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                             Létourneau J.A.

                                                                  Noël J.A.

                                                                  Nadon J.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE                    

BENCH BY:                                             Létourneau J.A.

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Pauline Leroux

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Denis Tremblay

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Tremblay and Tremblay

Matane, 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.