[1] The Board of referees and the Umpire found that the respondent knowingly made false and misleading statements resulting in penalties under section 38 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (Act).

[2] A Notice of Violation was issued to the respondent by the Commission. Pursuant to subparagraph 7(5)(a)(ii) of the Act, the violation was classified as a serious violation because the value of the violation was assessed at $1,621, an amount that falls between the range of $1,000 and $5,000 retained by Parliament as the criterion for a serious violation. The value of the violation is determined in accordance with subsection 7(6) of the Act. Subparagraph 7(5)(a)(ii) and subsection 7(6) read:

7. [...]

(5) Except for violations for which a warning was imposed, each violation is classified as a minor, serious, very serious or subsequent violation as follows:

(a) if the value of the violation is

(i) less than $1,000, it is a minor violation,

(ii) $1,000 or more, but less than $5,000, it is a serious violation, or

(iii) $5,000 or more, it is a very serious violation; and

[...]

(6) The value of a violation is the total of

(a) the amount of the overpayment of benefits resulting from the acts or omissions on which the violation is based, and

(b) if the claimant is disqualified or disentitled from receiving benefits, or the act or omission on which the violation is based relates to qualification requirements under section 7, the amount determined, subject to subsection (7), by multiplying the claimant's weekly rate of benefit by the average number of weeks of regular benefits, as determined under the regulations.

7. [...]

(5) À l'exception des violations pour lesquelles un avertissement est donné, chaque violation est qualifiée de mineure, de grave, de très grave ou de subséquente, en fonction de ce qui suit:

a) elle est mineure, si sa valeur est inférieure à 1 000 $, grave, si elle est inférieure à 5 000 $, et très grave, si elle est de 5 000 $ ou plus;

[...]

(6) La valeur d'une violation correspond à la somme des montants suivants :

a) le versement excédentaire de prestations lié à l'acte délictueux sur lequel elle est fondée;

b) si le prestataire est exclu ou inadmissible au bénéfice des prestations, ou si l'acte délictueux en cause a trait aux conditions requises au titre de l'article 7, le montant obtenu, sous réserve du paragraphe (7), par multiplication de son taux de prestations hebdomadaires par le nombre moyen de semaines à l'égard desquelles des prestations régulières sont versées à un prestataire, déterminé conformément aux règlements.

[3] The learned Umpire, most likely through an oversight, used the amount of the penalty imposed upon the respondent, i.e. the sum of $811, as the value of the violation instead of the amount of the overpayment. On that basis, he erroneously proceeded to reclassify the violation as a minor violation pursuant to subparagraph 7(5)(a)(i).

[4] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Umpire will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Chief Umpire, or the person that he designates, for a new determination on the basis that the appeal of the respondent against the decision of the Board of referees should be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs since the applicant is not seeking costs.

"Gilles Létourneau"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-336-04

APPEAL FROM A DECISION GIVEN BY THE UMPIRE JUSTICE MICHEL BEAUDRY OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED APRIL 16, 2004, NO. CUB 60689

STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. LEITH SOMERVILLE

PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING: February 16, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DÉCARY J.A.

OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE

BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Me Pauline Leroux

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Leith Somerville

ON HIS OWN BEHALF

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Department of Justice Canada

Montreal, Quebec

FOR THE APPLICANT

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.

Do not display this message anymore