Date: 20020522
Docket: A-92-01
Montréal, Quebec, May 22, 2002
Coram: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCE BUIST
ANNIE ARBOUR
MARTINE BEAUCHAMP
SYLVAIN BERGERON
ANNIE BOURDEAU
MARIE CARON
MICHEL CHAREST
RICHARD CHEENEY
CAROLINE CÔTÉ
ANNY CÔTÉ
MARTIN CYR
JEAN-EUDES DARGIS
MARTIN DENIS
RENÉ FRANCIS
NATHALIE GAGNON
SUZANNE GODIN
MARC JETTÉ
LOUISE LACHANCE
PIERRE-EVENS LANGE
ERICK LAVALLÉE
JACQUES LEGAULT
DANIEL MOREAU
GAÉTAN ROBITAILLE
ANDRÉ ROUSSEAU
ANNIE ST-PIERRE
BRIGITTE THERRIEN
ANDRÉ TREMBLAY
MICHEL TREMBLAY
GAÉTAN VENDETTE
MARTIN JARRY
Plaintiffs-APPLICANTS
Page:
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SECURITY (EMPLOYER)
Defendants-RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LLB
Date: 20020522
Docket: A-92-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 213
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADONJ.A.
PELLETIERJ.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCE BUIST
ANNIE ARBOUR
MARTINE BEAUCHAMP
SYLVAIN BERGERON
ANNIE BOURDEAU
MARIE CARON
MICHEL CHAREST
RICHARD CHEENEY
CAROLINE CÔTÉ
ANNY CÔTÉ
MARTIN CYR
JEAN-EUDES DARGIS
MARTIN DENIS
RENÉ FRANCIS
NATHALIE GAGNON
SUZANNE GODIN
MARC JETTÉ
LOUISE LACHANCE
PIERRE-EVENS LANGE
ERICK LAVALLÉE
JACQUES LEGAULT
DANIEL MOREAU
GAÉTAN ROBITAILLE
ANDRÉ ROUSSEAU
ANNIE ST-PIERRE
BRIGITTE THERRIEN
ANDRÉ TREMBLAY
MICHEL TREMBLAY
GAÉTAN VENDETTE
MARTIN JARRY
Plaintiffs-APPLICANTS
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SECURITY (EMPLOYER)
Defendants-RESPONDENTS
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 22, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 22, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20020522
Docket: A-92-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 213
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADONJ.A.
PELLETIERJ.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCE BUIST
ANNIE ARBOUR
MARTINE BEAUCHAMP
SYLVAIN BERGERON
ANNIE BOURDEAU
MARIE CARON
MICHEL CHAREST
RICHARD CHEENEY
CAROLINE CÔTÉ
ANNY CÔTÉ
MARTIN CYR
JEAN-EUDES DARGIS
MARTIN DENIS
RENÉ FRANCIS
NATHALIE GAGNON
SUZANNE GODIN
MARC JETTÉ
LOUISE LACHANCE
PIERRE-EVENS LANGE
ERICK LAVALLÉE
JACQUES LEGAULT
DANIEL MOREAU
GAÉTAN ROBITAILLE
ANDRÉ ROUSSEAU
ANNIE ST-PIERRE
BRIGITTE THERRIEN
ANDRÉ TREMBLAY
MICHEL TREMBLAY
GAÉTAN VENDETTE
MARTIN JARRY
Plaintiffs-APPLICANTS
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SECURITY (EMPLOYER)
Defendants-RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec,
on May 22, 2002.)
LÉTOURNEAUJ.A.
[1] We are satisfied that the Umpire was justified in intervening with respect to the decision of the Board of Referees. Once again, it failed to ask itself the proper question, but this time as far as the employee is concerned rather than the employer, as indicated by the following conclusion that it drew:
Given the aforementioned case law, the members of the Board of Referees believe that the claimant did not lose her employment due to her own misconduct, as she was justified in protesting as she did. Her actions were intended to protect her safety and safeguard inmates and the general public.
[2] It was not a matter of asking itself whether the employee was justified in walking out and participating in an illegal strike in the same way that it was not a matter of determining whether the employer was justified in dismissing an employee: Attorney General of Canada and Marion, A-135-01, May 8, 2002 (F.C.A.). The question that it had to ask and answer was whether participation in an illegal strike constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C., 1996, c. 23, and whether the employee had lost her employment by reason of her misconduct.
[3] That is what the Umpire did and we were not satisfied that he misdirected himself in law and erred in any way that would warrant our intervention: Attorney General of Canada v. Namaro, 46 N.R. 541 (F.C.A.); Attorney General of Canada v. Kenny, 48 N.R. 225 (F.C.A.); Canada (Attorney General) v. Brissette, [1994] 1 F.C. 684 (F.C.A.).
[4] For these reasons, notwithstanding the very able arguments of Mr.Ouellet, the application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20020522
Docket: A-92-01
Between:
FRANCE BUIST ET AL.
Plaintiffs-APPLICANTS
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ET AL.
Defendants-RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-92-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: FRANCE BUIST ET AL.
Plaintiffs-APPLICANTS
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ET AL.
Defendants-RESPONDENTS
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 22, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
CONCURRED IN BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
DATE OF REASONS: May 22, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Jean-Guy Ouellet FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-APPLICANTS
Carole Bureau FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ouellet, Nadon & Associés
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-APPLICANTS
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS