A-1-81
Katina Matheodakis (Applicant)
v.
Canada Employment and Immigration Commis
sion (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Marceau JJ. and
Hyde D.J.—Montreal, May 13, 1981.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Applicant
seeks to set aside the decision of the Board of Referees which
turned on its finding as to whether applicant had established
her availability for work — Board's decision does not comply
with the requirements of s. 94(2) of the Unemployment Insur
ance Act, 1971 in that it does not state the findings of the
Board on the questions of fact that had to be resolved —
Board's decision set aside — Unemployment Insurance Act,
1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, s. 94(2) — Federal Court Act,
R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
H. Tsimberis for applicant.
G. Leblanc for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Borenstein, Duquette, Brott & Tsimberis,
Montreal, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: The appeal to the Board of Referees
raised the question whether the applicant had
established her availability for work. That was, of
course, a question of fact. In disposing of the
appeal, the Board was bound by the requirements
of subsection 94(2) of the Unemployment Insur
ance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, that its
decision "be recorded in writing and ... include a
statement of the findings of the board on questions
of fact material to the decision."
It is clear that the decision under attack does
not comply with those requirements. Indeed, it
does not state the findings of the Board on the
questions of fact that had to be resolved but
merely asserts, instead, that "the Insurance Offi
cer was justified to act as he did".
For those reasons, the decision of the Board of
Referees will be set aside and the matter will be
referred back to the Board for a new hearing and a
decision which shall conform with the require
ments of subsection 94(2) of the Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1971.
* * *
MARCEAU J. concurred.
* * *
HYDE D.J. concurred.
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.