Date: 20011030
Docket: A-145-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 328
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH MANSOUR
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario, on Tuesday, October 30, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20011030
Docket: A-145-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 328
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
MALONE
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH MANSOUR
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Tuesday, October 30, 2001)
EVANS J.A.
Mr. Mansour's claim for employment insurance benefits was rejected on the ground that he had been dismissed from his employment for cause. The hearing before the Umpire was held in May 1998 and he rendered his decision in November of that year: CUB 39704A. Mr. Mansour is out of time to challenge this decision.
Accordingly, the focus of the application for judicial review is the later decision of an Umpire (CUB 39704B), refusing Mr. Mansour's request to amend the earlier decision, on the ground that he had presented no new facts.
A request to amend an employment insurance decision may based on the existence of new facts presented to the Umpire: Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, section 120. Since the facts in question in this case existed before the hearing was held in the first case (CUB 39704A), they only qualify as "new facts" if they could not reasonably have been discovered by the applicant before the first decision was rendered, and, if they had been adduced, they would have been decisive of the issue that the Umpire had to decide: Canada (Attorney General) v. Chan (1994), 178 N.R. 372 at para. 11 (F.C.A.).
The "new facts" on which Mr. Mansour relied to support his request for an amendment are the terms of a settlement of a grievance against his dismissal. The terms of the settlement, dated October 23, 1996, relevant to this application are that the applicant's employment record was corrected to show that his employment terminated at the end of his contract, and that his employer would pay him $25,000.
In our opinion, there is no reason why the applicant could not have brought this 1996 settlement to the attention of the Umpire who rendered the first decision in 1998. It was clearly relevant to the ground on which he had been refused benefits, namely dismissal for cause. The terms of the settlement were therefore not "new facts" for the purpose of section 120.
We would only note that, in refusing to amend the first decision, the Umpire who rendered the decision under review stated that there was nothing in the settlement from which it could be inferred that the employer had withdrawn the original allegation of misconduct. However, the payment of $25,000 might have supported such an inference (see Canada (Attorney General) v. Boulton (1996), 208 N.R. 63 at para. 10 (F.C.A.)), although whether it would have established decisively that the applicant had not been dismissed for cause is another matter, and one that we need not decide.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-145-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH MANSOUR
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 30, 2001.
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Joseph Mansour
For the Appellant, on his own behalf
Ms. Janice Rogers
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Joseph Mansour
122 Deerglen Terrace
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6Y3
For the Appellant, on his own behalf
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20011030
Docket: A-145-00
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH MANSOUR
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT