Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     Date: 19980305

     Docket: A-577-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

         DENAULT J.A.

         DESJARDINS J.A.

BETWEEN:

     GISÈLE LACASSE

     Applicant

     - and -

     CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

     Respondent

     - and -

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Third Party

Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Thursday, March 5, 1998.

Judgment delivered from the bench on Thursday, March 5, 1998.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      PRATTE J.A.

     Date: 19980305

     Docket: A-577-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

         DENAULT J.A.

         DESJARDINS J.A.

BETWEEN:

     GISÈLE LACASSE

     Applicant

     - and -

     CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

     Respondent

     - and -

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Third Party

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec

     on Thursday, March 5, 1998)

PRATTE J.A.

[1]      We are all of the view that this application must fail.

[2]      It seems clear to us, despite what Mr. de Merchant told us, that the periodic indemnities received by a worker under section 49 of Quebec"s Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases do not constitute "permanent settlement workers" compensation payments" within the meaning of paragraphs 57(2)(b ) and (3)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations.

[3]      Nor are we persuaded by Mr. de Merchant"s argument that the indemnities paid pursuant to section 49 should not be taken into consideration in determining whether a worker has had an interruption of earnings because they are intended to compensate not for the loss of the wages the worker was earning before the accident, but for the loss of wages the worker might earn in spite of the accident. Regardless of how the amount is calculated, the indemnities are "workers" compensation payments received" within the meaning of paragraph 57(2)(b ) of the Regulations. There is no reason to draw a distinction where the Regulations do not do so.

     Louis Pratte

     J.A.

Certified true translation

Peter Douglas

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     Date: 19980305

     Docket: A-577-97

BETWEEN:

     GISÈLE LACASSE

     Applicant

     - and -

     CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

     COMMISSION

     Respondent

     - and -

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

     OF CANADA

     Third Party

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     OF THE COURT

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                      A-577-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  Gisèle Lacasse v.

                             Canada Employment Insurance

                             Commission et al.

PLACE OF HEARING:                  Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                  Thursday, March 5, 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                  Pratte J.A.

                             Denault J.A.

                             Desjardins J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:          Pratte J.A.

APPEARANCES:

William De Merchant                      for the applicant

Carole Bureau

Paul Deschênes                      for the respondent and the third party

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Campeau, Ouellet et Associés

Montréal, Quebec                      for the applicant

George Thomson

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                      for the respondent and the third party


 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.