|
Federal Court of Appeal |
|
A-189-09
A-190-09
A-191-09
A-194-09
A-195-09
Docket: A-193-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PHILIPPE GAGNÉ
Respondent
Docket: A-189-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
STEEVE CASTONGUAY
Respondent
Docket: A-190-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DAVID DROUIN
Respondent
Docket: A-191-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
SAMUEL GIRARD
Respondent
Docket: A-194-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
YAN TREMBLAY
Respondent
Docket: A-195-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
RICHARD GUILLEMETTE
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010.
REASONS OF JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
|
|
Cour d’appel fédérale |
Date: 20100921
Dockets: A-193-09
A-189-09
A-190-09
A-191-09
A-194-09
A-195-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 237
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
Docket: A-193-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PHILIPPE GAGNÉ
Respondent
Docket: A-189-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
STEEVE CASTONGUAY
Respondent
Docket: A-190-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DAVID DROUIN
Respondent
Docket: A-191-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
SAMUEL GIRARD
Respondent
Docket: A-194-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
YAN TREMBLAY
Respondent
Docket: A-195-09
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
RICHARD GUILLEMETTE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010)
[1] In accordance with an order made by this Court on July 30, 2009, the reasons below in Philippe Gagné’s file (A‑193‑09) apply mutatis mutandis and dispose of the five other files. A copy will therefore be placed in each of the other files to stand as reasons in those cases.
[2] The Board of Referees determined first that Philippe Gagné had not lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The Umpire refused to interfere in that decision for the following reason:
. . . [T]he Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the claimants involved could not suspect that their behaviour would jeopardize their employment, given that this behaviour had long been tolerated, even by the supervisors, and that these actions had been committed in plain sight and with the knowledge of the supervisors without penalty, at least as far as the claimants knew. The Board could therefore conclude based on this evidence that the claimants’ actions did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act. (Reasons, page 5)
[3] There is no error in that statement as regards the applicable principle in matters of misconduct. The only question which arises is whether the Umpire could make this finding based on the evidence, and it is this Court’s opinion that he could.
[4] The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed with costs in file A‑193‑09 only.
Certified true translation
Tu-Quynh Trinh
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-193-09, A-189-09, A-190-09, A-191-09, A-194-09 and A-195-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney General of Canada v. Philippe Gagné, Steeve Castonguay, David Drouin, Samuel Girard, Yan Tremblay, Richard Guillemette
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 21, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NOËL J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Québec, Quebec |
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
|