Date: 20000313
Docket: A-19-99
| CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. |
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
DIANE BRUNET,
Plaintiff,
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Defendant.
Hearing held at Montréal on Monday, March 13, 2000
Judgment rendered at Montréal on Monday, March 13, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.
Date: 20000313
Docket: A-19-99
| CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. |
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
DIANE BRUNET,
Plaintiff,
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench in Montréal, Quebec
on Monday, March 13, 2000)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] Counsel for the plaintiff did not persuade the Court that the umpire made any error which could be a basis for judicial review.
[2] This case shows the relationship between the concepts of unemployment s. 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and availability in s. 14 of that Act. Although as in the case at bar the discussion may be undertaken from the standpoint of unemployment, it is clear that to determine whether a person worked a full week within the meaning of s. 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, one of the tests to be considered is the time spent on employment, which leads us to what in Vinet v. C.E.I.C. (1989), 100 N.R. 24, Marceau J.A. described as passive availability as opposed to the availability discussed in s. 14.
[3] Accordingly the confusion, if there was confusion, is not fatal as such to the decision made by a board of referees and the umpire was right not to be concerned with it in the case at bar.
[4] The finding of the board of referees, approved by the umpire, that the claimant, who operated a drop-in centre, had the free use of an apartment and had his meals provided by resources supplied by the Quebec government for recipients, was based on the evidence. Accordingly, there can be no question of voluntary work here.
[5] Finally, this residence was operated under a contract concluded between the plaintiff and the Centre hospitalier Pierre Janet, a contract by which a type of compensation is paid to the plaintiff in exchange for reception and management services. In the circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff was an "independent worker" within the meaning of s. 43 of the Regulations.
[6] The application for judicial review will be dismissed without costs.
| Robert Décary J.A. |
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
| FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Date: 20000313 Docket: A-19-99 Between: DIANE BRUNET, Plaintiff, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, Defendant. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE: A-19-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: DIANE BRUNET, |
Plaintiff,
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Defendant.
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: March 13, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A. |
| DATED: March 13, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
| Jean-Guy Ouellet for the plaintiff |
| Paul Deschênes for the defendant |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| CAMPEAU, OUELLET & ASSOCIÉS for the plaintiff |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg for the defendant |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario