Date: 19981215
Docket: A-868-97
| QUÉBEC, QUEBEC, THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 1998 |
| Coram: PRATTE J.A. |
| DESJARDINS J.A. |
| DÉCARY J.A. |
| Between: |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
| Applicant |
| And: |
| JEANNOT PILOTE |
| Respondent |
| JUDGMENT |
| The application for judicial review is allowed and the part of the Umpire"s decision which states that the Commission could not reclaim the benefits which were improperly paid before March 29, 1993, is quashed. |
| Louis Pratte |
| J.A. |
| Certified true translation |
| M. Iveson |
Date: 19981215
Docket: A-868-97
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATTE
THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
JEANNOT PILOTE
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec on Tuesday, December 15, 1998
Judgment delivered at Québec, Quebec on Tuesday, December 15,1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19981215
Docket: A-868-97
Coram: PRATTE J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
JEANNOT PILOTE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec
on Tuesday, December 15, 1998)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] According to the Umpire, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (the Commission) could not invoke the extended time of thirty-six months for reconsideration of a claim for benefit provided in subsection 43(6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, as amended (the Act), as it had chosen not to impose the penalty available to it under section 33 of the Act when a claimant has "made a statement . . . that he knew to be false or misleading". In the Umpire"s opinion, as soon as the Commission decided not to impose the penalty prescribed by section 33, the Commission could no longer invoke the extended time provided in subsection 43(6) in cases in which, in its opinion, "a false or misleading statement . . . has been made".
[2] The Umpire erred in finding a connection between section 33 and subsection 43(6). On one hand, the applicable test is not the same, as section 33 requires that the [claimant] "knew" the statement to be false or misleading. On the other hand, the fact that the Commission decided not to exercise the discretion provided in section 33 in no way prevents it from considering that a false or misleading statement within the meaning of subsection 43(6) has been made, and accordingly taking advantage of the extended time of thirty-six months to reconsider the claim for benefit.
[3] The application for judicial review will be allowed and the part of the Umpire"s decision which states that the Commission could not reclaim the benefits which were improperly paid before March 29, 1993, will be set aside.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19981215
Docket: A-868-97
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
JEANNOT PILOTE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-868-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
AND:
JEANNOT PILOTE
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 15, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Décary
Dated: December 15, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Francisco Couto for the applicant
Jeannot Pilote for himself
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada for the applicant
Himself for himself