 Printer-Friendly Page
SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN:
PETER J. ARMSTRONG Applicant
- and -
THE BOARD OF REFEREES; and THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OF CANADA; and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, Jointly, Severally and Personally
Respondents
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, February 12th, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, February 12, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: SEXTON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: STRAYER J.A. SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20030212
Docket: A-81-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 79
CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
PETER J. ARMSTRONG
Applicant
- and -
THE BOARD OF REFEREES; and THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OF CANADA; and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, Jointly, Severally and Personally
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, February 12, 2003)
SEXTON J.A.
[1] The Applicant applies for judicial review of the decision of the Umpire dated November 20, 2001. [2] The Umpire concluded that the Board of Referees had not acted in a perverse or capricious manner in finding that the Applicant had been suspended from his employment and was therefore caught by the provisions of section 31 of the Regulations under the Act.
[3] In spite of the lengthy arguments advanced by the Applicant relating to various breaches of his rights and the alleged reversal of the onus of proof before the Board of Referees we have not been persuaded that the Umpire erred in upholding the decision of the Board.
[4] Before the Board of Referees the issue was whether there was misconduct within the meeting of the Employment Insurance Act which was the cause of the loss of the Applicant's employment. There was sufficient evidence before the Board on which it could conclude that the Commission was correct in finding misconduct.
[5] Contrary to the submissions of the Applicant, the Board did not reverse the onus of proof on the issue of misconduct.
[6] The Application will therefore be dismissed.
"J. E. Sexton" J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-81-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER J. ARMSTRONG Applicant - and -
THE BOARD OF REFEREES; and THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OF CANADA; and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, Jointly, Severally and Personally Respondents
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Peter J. Armstrong
For the Applicant
Mr. Derek Edwards
For the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Peter J. Armstrong Scarborough, Ontario For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondents FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030212
Docket: A-81-02
BETWEEN:
PETER J. ARMSTRONG Applicant
- and -
THE BOARD OF REFEREES; and THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OF CANADA; and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, Jointly, Severally and Personally
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
