RCF 49189R
[2012] 2 F.C.R. D-11
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Judicial review of umpire’s decision dismissing applicant’s appeal on ground Board of Referees not erring in fact, law—After introduction of application for judicial review, parties filing to Court joint motion for consent judgment on whether respondent unemployed, ensuring Board of Referees to reconsider file following new hearing, receive directions regarding test at Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96‑332, s. 30(2)—Principal issue in proceeding whether, in context of application for judicial review, Court to set aside decision of umpire on mere consent of parties to proceeding—Under Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 118, decision of umpire final, not subject to appeal—Decision not to be set aside by mere consent—Quashing such decision by mere consent contrary to Parliament’s intention, principle of finality, stability of judgments established by Parliament— Judgment on merits, however, to be rendered in summary way in application for judicial review, on joint motion, when special circumstances warranting it—However, such application allowed only if parties demonstrating error on part of umpire justifying such conclusion—In present case, Board of Referees not taking into account approach, principles set out in Martens v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FCA 240—Board not asking whether extent of respondent’s engagement in business during benefit period, determined according to Regulations, s. 30(3), was such that respondent could not rely on it as principal means of livelihood—Board of Referees merely stating findings of fact in light of factors enumerated in Regulations, s. 30(3), without drawing explicit conclusions on use of test at s. 30(2)—Decision set aside on whether unemployed, matter referred back for redetermination with directions—Application allowed in part.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Goulet (A-352-11, 2012 FCA 62, Mainville J.A., judgment dated February 24, 2012, 11 pp.)