Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Lapointe v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2011-02-21
Neutral citation 2011 FCA 66
File numbers A-212-10

Decision Content

Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d’appel fédérale

 

 

Date: 20110221

Docket: A-212-10

Citation: 2011 FCA 66

 

CORAM:       NOËL J.A.

                        TRUDEL J.A.

                        MAINVILLE J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

KEVIN LAPOINTE

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on February 21, 2011.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 21, 2011.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                         MAINVILLE J.A.

 

Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d’appel fédéral

 

 

Date: 20110221

Docket: A-212-10

Citation: 2011 FCA 66

 

CORAM:       NOËL J.A.

                        TRUDEL J.A.

                        MAINVILLE J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

KEVIN LAPOINTE

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 21, 2011)

MAINVILLE J.A.

[1]               The applicant is seeking judicial review of a decision by Umpire Marin numbered CUB 74304 which dismissed the applicant’s appeal of a decision of a board of referees constituted pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23. This board of referees upheld a decision by the Employment Insurance Commission according to which the applicant had not accumulated a sufficient number of hours of insurable employment in the applicable qualifying period for receiving benefits.

 

[2]               Counsel for the applicant has not satisfied us that there are any grounds to intervene on the issues he raised.

 

[3]               Moreover, the board of referees, in a second decision, invited the applicant to file an appeal regarding the [translation] “antedating”. This issue was not raised in the subsequent appeal before the Umpire or before this Court and therefore cannot be reviewed.

 

[4]               Consequently, the application for judicial review will be dismissed, but without costs, given the circumstances of this case.

 

 

“Robert M. Mainville”

J.A.

 

 

 

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

Federal Court of Appeal

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

Docket:                                                                              A-212-10

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              KEVIN LAPOINTE v.

                                                                                                ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Montréal, Quebec

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          February 21, 2011

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       NOËL J.A.

                                                                                                TRUDEL J.A.

                                                                                                MAINVILLE J.A.

 

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            MAINVILLE J.A.

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Jean-Yves Therrien

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Pauline Leroux

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Jean-Yves Therrien

Montréal, Quebec

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Myles J. Kirvan

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

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.