EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Boivin
A-67-02, A-65-02, A-66-02, A-69-02
2003 FCA 125, Noël J.A.
11/3/03
10 pp.
Judicial review of Umpire's decision upholding Board of Referees' decision that sum received by respondent teacher at end of his contract, vacation pay herein, constituted earnings under Employment Insurance Act and should, under Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 36(4) be allocated over period in which services had been rendered and not over weeks following separation from employment--Under order of this Court, consolidation of proceedings in dockets A-67-02, A-65-02, A-66-02 and A-69-02 granted, case of Gilles Boivin (respondent) being designated as principal case--Dispute over characterization of amount paid to respondent and time at which it became payable--In Guy Gauthier v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1994] F.C.J. No. 279 (C.A.) (QL), Pratte J.A. held that it necessarily followed that collective agreement did not contemplate that vacation pay would be paid at same time as salary and as part thereof--This is how it must be read since, if teacher whose contract ends before its expiration was entitled to payment of vacation pay simultaneously with his salary, clause 8-2.04 would be pointless--Clearly, this clause, which applies irrespective of teacher's contractual status, presupposes that teacher not entitled to payment of vacation pay at same time as salary and serves to specify how amount that becomes payable as such will be calculated when contract of employment prematurely terminated--This reading of collective agreement consistent with one made by parties to agreement--Record indicating that employer always considered vacation pay as being payable upon separation from employment and record does not report any grievance in regard to this issue--Application for judicial review allowed --Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23--Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332, s. 36(4).