Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                         Date: 19980316

                                         Docket: A-662-97

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 16th DAY OF MARCH 1998

CORAM:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT

     THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS

     THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER

BETWEEN:

     CHRISTIAN LEMAY

     Applicant


AND:

     CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

     Respondent

     AND:

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Third Party

     J U D G M E N T

     The application for judicial review is dismissed.

     Pierre Denault

     J.A.

Certified true translation

Peter Douglas

     Docket: A-662-97

CORAM:          DENAULT J.A.

             DESJARDINS J.A.

             CHEVALIER D.J.

BETWEEN:

     CHRISTIAN LEMAY

     Applicant

     AND

     CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

     Respondent

     AND

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Third Party

     Hearing held at Montréal on Monday, March 16, 1998

     Judgment delivered at Montréal on Monday, March 16, 1998

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

         Date: 19980316

         Docket: A-662-97

CORAM:      DENAULT J.A.

     DESJARDINS J.A.

     CHEVALIER D.J.

BETWEEN:

     CHRISTIAN LEMAY

     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

     on Monday, March 16, 1998)

DENAULT J.A.

[1]      We are of the view that the claimant"s application for judicial review must fail.

[2]      In our view, the Umpire was right to remind the Board of Referees, which had applied the six factors from Schwenk (CUB 5454) in allowing the claimant"s appeal, of the much more recent decisions of this Court in Jouan (A-366-94), Taschuk (A-619-95) and Vande Bunte (A-697-95), where the Court specifically recognized that in interpreting subsection 43(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations,time spent is "the most important, most relevant and only basic factor to be taken into account". While it was not irrelevant to consider other factors, it seems the Board of Referees made the mistake of attaching too much importance to the six factors, taken individually and together, rather than focussing on the time factor. The Umpire was therefore justified in deducting from the claimant the 35 to 40 hours per week he spent on his business while working on the job sites. As for the time spent on tenders, ordering equipment, meeting clients"in short, looking after the company without keeping track of the hours"this time, albeit voluntary, should be taken into account.

[3]      As an operator of a business, it was up to the applicant to rebut the presumption in subsection 43(1) of the Regulations that he was working a full working week. Given the statutory declarations by the partners, the oral evidence before the Board of Referees did not justify its statement that the applicant [TRANSLATION] "was unable to do 40 hours/week of solicitation".


[4]      The Umpire was justified in intervening and varying the decision of the Board of Referees.

[5]      The application for judicial review will be dismissed.

     Pierre Denault

     J.A.

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

March 16, 1998

Certified true translation

Peter Douglas

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 19980316


Docket: A-662-97

Between:

     CHRISTIAN LEMAY

     Applicant

     AND:

     CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

     COMMISSION

     Respondent

     AND:

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Third Party

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:          A-662-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:          CHRISTIAN LEMAY

     Applicant

             AND

             CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

             COMMISSION

     Respondent

             AND

             DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

             CANADA

     Third Party

PLACE OF HEARING:          Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:          March 16, 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT, THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS AND THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER)

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Denault

     Dated:          March 16, 1998

APPEARANCES:

     William De Merchant          for the applicant

     Claude Provencher          for the respondent and the

                 third party


     - 2 -      A-662-97

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

     Campeau, Ouellet, Nadon, Barabé,      for the applicant

     Cyr, De Merchant, Bernstein, Cousineau,

     Heap, Palardy

     Montréal, Quebec

     George Thomson          for the respondent

     Deputy Attorney General of Canada      and the third party

     Ottawa, Ontario


 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.