[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
2001-1940(EI)
2001-1941(EI)
BETWEEN:
GINETTE MEUNIER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on October 3, 2001, at Montréal, Quebec, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge J. F. Somers
Appearances
Agent for the Appellant: Michel Forget
Counsel for the Respondent: Claude Lamoureux
JUDGMENT
The appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of October 2001.
|
"J. F. Somers" |
D.J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 17th day of February 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20011029
Docket: 2001-1940(EI)
2001-1941(EI)
BETWEEN:
GINETTE MEUNIER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Somers, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] These cases were heard on common evidence at Montréal, Quebec, on October 3, 2001.
[2] In file No. 2001-1940(EI), the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), by letter dated March 26, 2001, informed the appellant of his decision that the number of hours worked during the period in issue, between August 24 and November 9, 1998, for Productions Maraîchères Mailhot Inc. (payer Mailhot) totalled 462 insurable hours.
[3] In file No. 2001-1941(EI), the Minister, by letter dated March 26, 2001, informed the appellant of his decision that her employment with the Directeur Général des élections du Québec (payer Québec), on November 30, 1998, was not insurable since it had been held for less than 25 days.
[4] In making his decision in file No. 2001-1940(EI), the Minister relied on the following facts, which were either admitted or denied:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) During the period in issue, the appellant rendered services to the payer under a contract of service. (admitted)
(b) At the time of her departure on November 9, 1998, the appellant received from the payer an amount of $132.24, representing her "4%". (admitted)
(c) During the period in issue, the appellant was absent from her work due to illness for a period of 4 1/2 days. (admitted)
(d) The appellant was remunerated by the payer in accordance with an hourly rate; her hours of sick leave were not remunerated by the payer. (admitted)
(e) The respondent informed the appellant that the insurable hours of employment were hours actually worked and remunerated or hours deemed to have been worked such as paid leave hours. (admitted)
(f) During the period in issue, the appellant accumulated 462 insurable hours of work with the payer. (denied)
[5] In making his decision in file No. 2001-1941(EI), the Minister relied on the following facts:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) On November 30, 1998, the appellant worked for the payer as a deputy returning officer on election day. (admitted)
(b) That position involved one 12-hour day of actual work. (denied)
(c) The appellant claims instead that she worked 18 hours for the payer because she had to show up somewhere the day before to receive documents and be sworn in, and she had to report one hour before the election officially began. (admitted)
(d) The respondent informed the appellant that the employment held by a person in the government of a province in connection with an election or referendum was not insurable if that person did not regularly hold employment with that employer and held that employment for less than 25 days. (admitted)
File No. 2001-1940(EI)
[6] The appellant admitted all the facts as alleged, except subparagraph 5(f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, denying that she had accumulated only 462 insurable hours of work with the payer.
[7] The appellant declared that she worked for the payer Mailhot during the period in issue and that she was paid an hourly wage.
[8] At the time of her departure, on November 9, 1998, the appellant received from the payer Mailhot an amount of $132.24 representing her four percent vacation pay.
[9] During the said period in issue, the appellant was absent from her work due to illness for a period totalling four and a half days.
[10] The appellant was not paid for her sick leave since she was paid by the hour. Nor did she receive vacation leave days but was paid an amount of four percent of her salary.
[11] The appellant did not actually work during the days in question.
[12] Section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (the "Regulations") reads as follows:
Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated.
[13] The evidence showed that the appellant did not actually work during the sick days. Nor can the sum of $132.24 be considered in computing the number of insurable days because she did not actually work.
[14] Thus, the number of hours worked by the appellant with the payer Mailhot during the period in issue totalled 462 in accordance with the provisions of section 9.1 of the Regulations.
File No. 2001-1941(EI)
[15] The appellant admitted all the facts as alleged by the Minister except subparagraph 5(b) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal.
[16] On November 30, 1998, the appellant worked for the Directeur Général des élections du Québec as a deputy returning officer on election day.
[17] The appellant stated that she had worked 18 hours for the payer Québec on election day, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., preparing ballot boxes, recounting votes and closing ballot boxes, in addition to four hours of training on the day preceding the election.
[18] She was not a regular employee of the Directeur des élections. She admits that she only worked the above number of hours for this payer.
[19] Subsection 8(1) of the Regulations reads in part as follows:
Subject to subsection (2), the following employments are excluded from insurable employment:
...
(c) employment of a person by Her Majesty in right of Canada, the government of a province, a municipality or a school board in connection with a referendum or election to public office if the person
(i) is not regularly employed by that employer, and
(ii) is employed by that employer in that employment for less than 25 days.
[20] The evidence showed that the appellant did not hold regular employment with this payer and that she held employment for less than 25 days.
[21] For the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, Parliament saw fit to make this exception and to exclude this employment from insurable employment.
[22] Parliament allows that regulations be made to exclude certain employments from insurable employment. The Court cannot flout those regulations.
[23] Thus, during the period in issue, that is, November 30, 1998, the appellant did not hold insurable employment with the payer in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Regulations.
[24] The appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of October 2001.
|
"J. F. Somers" |
D.J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 17th day of February 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor