Date: 19990930

Docket: A-114-98

CORAM:      ISAAC, J.A.,

         MCDONALD, J.A.,

         SEXTON, J.A.

BETWEEN:

     RUSSELL DEIGAN,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

     Respondent.

Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on September 30, 1999

JUDGMENT delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on September 30, 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      ISAAC, J.A.

Date: 19990930

Docket: A-114-98

CORAM:      ISAAC, J.A.,

         MCDONALD, J.A.,

         SEXTON, J.A.

BETWEEN:

     RUSSELL DEIGAN,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ISAAC, J.A.

[1]      The applicant brings this section 28 application and asks us to review and set aside a decision of an Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act. The Umpire concluded that the applicant was not entitled to insurance benefits under that Act, because he did not have the requisite number of weeks to qualify and was not eligible to have his qualifying period extended under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Act.

     That paragraph reads:

8.(2) A qualifying period mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is extended by the aggregate of any weeks during the qualifying period for which the person proves, in such manner as the Commission may direct, that throughout the week the person was not employed in insurable employment because the person was

(a) incapable of work because of a prescribed illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy;

[2]      Before the Umpire, the applicant contended principally, that he was eligible for the extension because he had been subjected to an "economic quarantine" by his vindictive employer.

[3]      The learned Umpire rejected that contention. She concluded that the word "quarantine" found in paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Act , "is being used as an cognate to illness and injury" as found in paragraph 8(2)(a) and in other sections of the Act and in the Regulations. Since the applicant had led no evidence that he was ill or injured in any way, she dismissed his appeal.

[4]      Before us the applicant repeated the same argument, but we are all of the view that the Umpire was right in rejecting them. We would therefore dismiss the section 28 application, without costs.

                        (Sgd.) "Julius Isaac"

                             J.A.

September 30, 1999

Vancouver, British Columbia

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     APPEAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:      A-114-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:      RUSSELL DEIGAN

     v.

     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING:      VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

DATE OF HEARING:      SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ISAAC, J.A.

DATED:      SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

APPEARANCES:

MR. RUSSELL DEIGAN      FOR THE APPLICANT

MS. ANDRIENNE

MAHAFFEY      FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MR. RUSSELL DEIGAN

VANCOUVER, BC      FOR THE APPLICANT

MORRIS ROSENBERG

DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF CANADA      FOR THE RESPONDENT