A-168-80
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Normand Desjardins (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Damn JJ. and
Lalande D.J.—Quebec City, May 27, 1980.
Unemployment insurance — Applicant seeks to set aside
decision of Umpire reversing decision of Board of Referees
which had held that respondent was not entitled to unemploy
ment insurance benefits — Whether Umpire erred in law in
quashing the previous decision because the case was one in
which the Commission should have exercised the power con
ferred on it by s. 55(10) of the Unemployment Insurance Act,
1971 — Umpire's decision quashed — Unemployment Insur
ance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, as amended, s. 55(10).
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Jean-Marc Aubry for applicant.
Jérôme Carrier for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Néron, Blais, Bélzile, Carrier, Auger &
Bouchard, Quebec City, for respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: Applicant is seeking the setting
aside of a decision by an Umpire pursuant to the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-
71-72, c. 48, as amended. That decision reversed
the decision of a Board of Referees which had held
that respondent was not entitled to the unemploy
ment insurance benefits he was claiming.
The decision of the Board of Referees, which
had upheld the Commission's denial of respond
ent's claim, was based on the fact that respondent
had not complied with subsection 55(4) of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, which
equires that applications for benefits be made
within the time period fixed by Regulation. The
Umpire quashed this decision because, in his view,
the case was one in which the Commission should
have exercised the power conferred on it by sub
section 55(10) of the Act, under which:
55....
(10) The Commission may waive or vary the conditions and
requirements of any of the provisions of this section or the
regulations whenever in its opinion the circumstances warrant
such waiver or variation for the benefit of the claimant in a
particular case or class or group of cases.
In so deciding, the Umpire appears to have
committed an error of law. The extraordinary
power referred to in subsection 55(10) is conferred
only on the Commission, which may exercise it
when, "in its opinion", the circumstances warrant.
The Umpire therefore exceeded his jurisdiction
when he exercised this power himself because, in
his view, the Commission should have exercised it.
His decision will therefore be quashed and the
matter referred back to be decided on the basis
that an umpire cannot exercise the power con
ferred on the Commission by subsection 55(10).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.