Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Innes
A-167-93
McDonald J.A.
2/5/94
9 pp.
Application for judicial review of Umpire's decision reversing Board's conclusions respondent disentitled from receiving benefits as newborn child, having remained in hospital for surgery, did not arrive home during period required by Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 20 -- Respondent left employment to care for child born on July 20, 1991 who did not physically arrive at family residence until August 20, 1991 -- Respondent personally cared for child at hospital for periods of 12 to 16 hours a day -- Respondent filed application for parental bene- fits; disentitled because no proof child had "arrived at home" during period of July 28 to August 17 -- Whether right to receive parental benefits while newborn child in hospital before being taken to family residence; proper interpretation of Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 20 -- Object of parental leave to facilitate element of emotional bonding between parent and child; should not matter whether child physically in claimant's house or in hospital, more particularly when claimant at hospital or hotel most of time; but Act specifically providing benefits payable to claimant to remain at home to care for child -- Wording in s. 20 clear and unambiguous; phrase "arrives at the claimant's home" not susceptible of more than one meaning -- Provision admitting of no other interpretation than that child must have left hospital and arrived at claimant's ordinary place of residence in order for parental benefits to be payable -- Application allowed -- Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, s. 20 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 40, s. 14).