EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Merrigan
A-92-03
2004 FCA 253, Desjardins J.A.
28/7/04
7 pp.
Judicial review of Umpire's decision reversing Board of Referees' (Board) decision respondent disentitled from employment benefits under Employment Insurance Act (Act), s. 11(4)(a)--Respondent working alternate weeks as bar manager, drawing employment insurance benefits during off time--Board concluded respondent not unemployed when laid off work due to prearranged period of leave resulting from working longer work week and then returning to work following week--Umpire said Board misinterpreted facts by relying on piece of evidence filed by Commission, which reported erroneously that respondent had stated that regular bar hours amount to 42 hours a week but other activities, such as catering and other parties, added another 10 or more hours to total--Umpire said actual facts respondent never worked more than 42 hours per week and on alternate week may have worked, if at all, 10 more hours--Umpire erred in law in interfering with finding of Board--Determination under s. 11(4) requiring evidence claimant worked more than usual number of hours normally worked in week by persons employed in full-time employment--Question of fact-- Umpire should not intervene unless reviewable error-- Procedure before Umpire not appeal in usual sense but circumscribed review--Board pivot of entire system put in place by Act for purpose of verifying, interpreting facts-- There was evidence supporting Board's conclusion respondent's regular scheduled hours and extra hours completed during same week--Nothing in record, reasons indicating basis for Umpire's assertion error committed by employment insurance officer in recording conversation-- Therefore open to Board to conclude respondent regularly worked greater number of hours than normally worked in week by persons employed in full-time employment-- Application allowed--Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 11(4)(a).