EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Judicial review of decision by Board of Referees regarding respondent’s dismissal—Respondent working for Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) when dismissed— Respondent held position of insurance officer level II— Dismissal occurred after placed himself in conflict of interest situation—Respondent familiar with contents of HRDC Code of Conduct, code of conduct for Public Service as well as directives issued by employer, which he contravened— Arbitrator responsible for considering grievance filed by respondent against dismissal confirmed respondent in conflict of interest when used information obtained in performance of duties for own benefit—Grievance arbitrator ruled respondent failed to disclose nature of activities to employer as required under Code of Conduct—Issue before Board of Referees, Umpire whether respondent’s actions constituted misconduct within meaning of Employment Insurance Act—No doubt serious faults by respondent constituted misconduct within meaning of Act—Board of Referees erred in restricting analysis to only one of faults alleged against respondent when more than one incident provided reason for dismissal— Ignored relevant evidence in record, including evidence of serious breaches of Code of Conduct and evidence of breach of trust relationship with employer—Error led board to make second error, i.e. finding action not deliberate when repetition of similar contraventions tends to contradict such finding— Requirement only that actions be conscious, on that point no doubt in this case—Finally, board of referees erred when said no “breach of a duty that is express or implied in the contract of employment” and that breach not “of such scope that its author could normally foresee that it would be likely to result in his dismissal”—Confronted with these errors, Umpire should have intervened—Rather made issue “purely an issue of credibility,” whereas concept of misconduct within meaning of Act involved question of law—Application allowed— Respondent disqualified from receiving benefits for loss of employment by reason of misconduct within meaning of Act, s. 30—Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 30.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bellavance (A‑553‑03, 2005 FCA 87, Létourneau J.A., judgment dated 2/3/05, 6 pp.)