Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20180417


Docket: A-245-17

Citation: 2018 FCA 79

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

CORAM:

NADON J.A.

BOIVIN J.A.

DE MONTIGNY J.A.

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

RICHARD CHAMPAGNE

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

Heard at Montreal, Quebec, on April 17, 2018.

Judgment delivered from the bench at Montreal, Quebec, on April 17, 2018.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

BOIVIN J.A.

 


Date: 20180417


Docket: A-245-17

Citation: 2018 FCA 79

CORAM:

NADON J.A.

BOIVIN J.A.

DE MONTIGNY J.A.

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

RICHARD CHAMPAGNE

 

 

Applicant

 

 

and

 

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

 

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the bench at Montreal, Quebec, on April 17, 2018.)

BOIVIN J.A.

[1]  Despite the able arguments of Ms. Asselin, we are all of the view that it was reasonable for the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal to make the finding it did after its reading of subsection 36(9) of the Employment Insurance Regulations (SOR/96-332), (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190). In fact, the subsection does not provide that it must be the employer that terminates the employment that must necessarily pay compensation. The source of the payment is not relevant for the purposes of subsection 36(9) of the Regulations. It suffices that the compensation was paid “by reason of a lay-off”. It was also reasonable for the Appeal Division to find, by relying on the pronouncements of this Court—specifically Canada (A.G.) v. Savarie, [1996] F.C.J. No. 1270; Brulotte v. Canada (A.G.), 2009 FCA 149; Canada (A.G.) v. Roch, 2003 FCA 356—that the purpose of employment insurance is to compensate an unemployed person for his or her loss of employment. In this case, it was when he was laid off from Aveos, on March 20, 2012, that the applicant really became unemployed and that the compensation became “payable” within the meaning of subsection 36(9) of the Regulations.

[2]  The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed. The respondent did not request costs and no costs will be awarded. 

“Richard Boivin”

J.A.

Certified true translation

Janine Anderson, Revisor


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD


DOCKET:

A-245-17

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

RICHARD CHAMPAGNE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:

MontrEal, QuEbec

 

DATE OF HEARING:

APRIL 17, 2018

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

NADON J.A.

BOIVIN J.A.

DE MONTIGNY J.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:

BOIVIN J.A.

 

APPEARANCES:

Anne-Julie Asselin

Claude Provencher

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Stéphanie Yung-Hing

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Trudel Johnston & Lespérance

Montreal, Quebec

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Nathalie G. Drouin

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 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.