UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Langelier
A-140-01
2002 FCA 157, Décary J.A
26/4/02
10 pp.
Application for judicial review of Unpire's decision Employment and Immigration Commission could not rely on 72-month deadline in Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 43(6) because had not discharged burden of proving claimant knowingly made false statements--"False statement" at issue apparently record of employment issued by employer on July 2, 1991 and attached by claimant to claim for benefits filed on July 31, 1991--Umpire misdirected himself when imposed on Commission, pursuant to s. 43(6), burden of proving claimant knowingly made false statements--In s. 43(6), Parliament merely requiring Commission be of opinion false or misleading statement has been made--Appeared from very wording of s. 43 that review procedure allowing Commission to change its mind in one direction or another: review may equally lead to reimbursement of overpayment by claimant as to payment by Commission of benefits hitherto denied or payment by Commission of additional benefits--Wording of s. 43(6) applicable whether overpayment or reimbursement in question--Neither wording of s. 43(6), nor legislative background nor purpose of extending review deadline provide basis for limiting possibility of extension only to cases in which statement at issue made by claimant himself--Court's function to decide whether Umpire could conclude Board of Referees had come to conclusion in patently unreasonable way that Commission discharged burden of proving there was false statement--S. 43(6) part of exceptional system, departure from ordinary law and must be strictly construed-- Umpire made no reviewable error when concluded patently unreasonable for Commission and Board of Referees to consider in circumstances of case at bar that there was false statement simply on basis of decision rendered by Revenue Canada--Application dismissed--Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1, s. 43.