Date: 19990930
Docket: A-114-98
CORAM: ISAAC, J.A.,
MCDONALD, J.A.,
SEXTON, J.A.
BETWEEN:
RUSSELL DEIGAN,
Applicant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on September 30, 1999
JUDGMENT delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on September 30, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ISAAC, J.A.
Date: 19990930
Docket: A-114-98
CORAM: ISAAC, J.A.,
MCDONALD, J.A.,
SEXTON, J.A.
BETWEEN:
RUSSELL DEIGAN,
Applicant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ISAAC, J.A.
[1] The applicant brings this section 28 application and asks us to review and set aside a decision of an Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act. The Umpire concluded that the applicant was not entitled to insurance benefits under that Act, because he did not have the requisite number of weeks to qualify and was not eligible to have his qualifying period extended under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Act.
That paragraph reads:
| 8.(2) A qualifying period mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is extended by the aggregate of any weeks during the qualifying period for which the person proves, in such manner as the Commission may direct, that throughout the week the person was not employed in insurable employment because the person was |
| (a) incapable of work because of a prescribed illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy; |
[2] Before the Umpire, the applicant contended principally, that he was eligible for the extension because he had been subjected to an "economic quarantine" by his vindictive employer.
[3] The learned Umpire rejected that contention. She concluded that the word "quarantine" found in paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Act , "is being used as an cognate to illness and injury" as found in paragraph 8(2)(a) and in other sections of the Act and in the Regulations. Since the applicant had led no evidence that he was ill or injured in any way, she dismissed his appeal.
[4] Before us the applicant repeated the same argument, but we are all of the view that the Umpire was right in rejecting them. We would therefore dismiss the section 28 application, without costs.
(Sgd.) "Julius Isaac"
J.A.
September 30, 1999
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-114-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: RUSSELL DEIGAN
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ISAAC, J.A.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| MR. RUSSELL DEIGAN FOR THE APPLICANT |
MS. ANDRIENNE
| MAHAFFEY FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MR. RUSSELL DEIGAN
| VANCOUVER, BC FOR THE APPLICANT |
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY
| GENERAL OF CANADA FOR THE RESPONDENT |