What's New

Board of Referees Jurisdiction:

CONWAY Supreme Court of Canada 32662 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court conducted a review of its previous decisions involving the jurisdiction of courts and administrative tribunals. The Court noted its decision in Tetrault-Gadoury and re-iterated: “The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 expressly conferred the jurisdiction to consider questions of law on the umpires, not the Board of Referees. This meant that under the legislative scheme, umpires, not the Referees, were authorized to resolve constitutional issues.”

GILL A-483-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : The Court concluded that the Commission does have discretion to determine whether or not to issue a notice of violation. A notice of violation is not mandatory or automatic under subsection 7.1(4). The Court also corrected its previous decisions in Geoffroy Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , Limosi Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , Piovesan Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , Kaur Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal and Patry Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , they should not be followed on this point of law and concludes that the Board of Referees do have the jurisdiction to set aside the notice of violation.

Antedate:

OUIMET – A-290-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : Thinking he was not entitled to benefits after losing his employment; that he had been guaranteed new employment, that he had had to wait for three weeks before receiving an ROE; and that he was again seeking employment, are not good causes for the delay for a six-week delay.

Availability:

LEBLANC A-67-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : Must consider whether notwithstanding his desire to get to work, the claimant was not available within the meaning of the Act because of obstacles preventing him from coming in to work.

Earnings:

CHARTIER et al A-353-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : (Filed application with the Supreme Court of Canada [33837] Supreme Court of Canada seeking leave to appeal on September 9, 2010.) Monies received from the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for severance pay, wages in lieu of notice or the loss or reduction of benefits arose from employment and constituted “earnings” in accordance with Regulation 35(2). Section 45 and 46 (of the EI Act) calculations can be made at any time when justified by one of the reasons listed in those sections. "Calculations" must also be taken to mean the allocation on which they are based. The validity of the notice issued under section 46 is dependent on the correctness of the allocation period stated therein. The purpose of the notice is to inform claimants that earnings owed to them by their employer will be deducted from the benefits that they have received and to indicate the allocation period for these earnings. The notice is procedural and achieves its purpose once it has been issued and delivered to the recipient.

MACNEIL A-75-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : Monthly payments received from the Union pension plan constitute earnings for EI purposes as the employer was obliged to contribute to the plan based on the number of hours worked by the claimant. Thus the monthly payments arose from employment.

Misconduct:

ROBERGE A-176-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : The role of the Board was not to determine whether the dismissal by the employer was justified or was the appropriate sanction.

LASSONDE A-213-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : Claimant’s explanations did not suffice to supersede the wilful nature of the alcohol consumption.

JOLIN A-200-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : The role of the Board was not to determine whether the dismissal by the employer was justified or was the appropriate sanction.

Penalties and Violations:

Voluntary Leaving:

PATEL A-274-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : The claimant bears the onus of proving “just cause”.

VAIRAMUTHU A-54-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : Voluntarily leaving employment to seek medical treatment abroad for a condition for which treatment is available locally is without just cause.

GREEY A-76-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : The proper test to distinguish employment from volunteer work is whether the claimant expected to derive any financial benefit from the work arrangement and not “some kind” of benefit independent of the work arrangement.

RUSSELL A-376-08 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : The two conditions set out in subsection 32(1) {voluntary taking a period of leave from employment without just cause} are met. The period of leave was authorized by the employer and the date of the return to her job was agreed to between the claimant and her employer in that her leave of absence was granted by the employer for a period of one year.

Teachers:

ARKINSTALL A-26-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , DORAIS A-27-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , WILLS A-28-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal , HUMMEL A-29-09 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal : Claimants teaching contracts had not terminated and they were not “casual” or “substitute” teachers within the meaning of subsection 33(2)(b) of the EI Regulations.