Leal v. Employment Insurance Commission of Canada
The application is dismissed because the challenge to decision CUB 51123 is time‑barred under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act and, with respect to CUB 51123A, the Umpire correctly refused reconsideration since the applicant failed to demonstrate new facts or a mistake as to a material fact that would justify...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 FCA 209
- Parties
- Applicant: Antonio Leal; Respondent: Employment Insurance Commission of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment Dismissing Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Reconsideration Under S.120 Employment Insurance Act, Statutory Time Limits for Judicial Review, New Facts/mistake as to Material Fact, Extension of Time Under Federal Courts Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Antonio Leal
Applicant
Employment Insurance Commission of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment Dismissing Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Umpire erred in refusing to reconsider decision CUB 51123 under s.120 of the Employment Insurance Act
- 2 Whether decision CUB 51123 was open to judicial review given the 30-day limit under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act
- 3 Whether there were new facts or a material mistake warranting reconsideration
Ratio Decidendi
The application is dismissed because the challenge to decision CUB 51123 is time‑barred under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act and, with respect to CUB 51123A, the Umpire correctly refused reconsideration since the applicant failed to demonstrate new facts or a mistake as to a material fact that would justify setting aside the original decision.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Judicial review application dismissed
- No judicial review permitted of decision CUB 51123 (time‑bar pursuant to s.18.1(2) Federal Courts Act)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Leal v. Employment Insurance Commission of Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-05-27 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 209 File numbers A-251-03 Decision Content Date:20040527 Docket: A-251-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 209 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: ANTONIO LEAL Applicant and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 2 and April 19, 2004. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 27, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MALONE J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. Date:20040527 Docket: A-251-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 209 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: ANTONIO LEAL Applicant and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MALONE J.A. [1] This application seeks judicial review of two decisions of Umpire Guy Goulard; the first being CUB 51123 dated March 14, 2001 and the second being CUB 51123A dated April 4, 2003. [2] No judicial review of the decision in CUB 51123 is possible as the 30-day time period for reviewing that decision has expired (see subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7; Mansour v. Canada, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1639), and the applicant did not provide any reason that would support extending that period. [3] As for CUB 51123A, the applicant now seeks to set aside the Umpire's decision that refused his request for the reconsideration of decision CUB 51123 pursuant to section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23. In my analysis, there are no legal or factual errors on the part of the Umpire that would warrant the intervention of this Court. The applicant failed to demonstrate to the Umpire that there were any new facts or a mistake as to a material fact that would warrant the Umpire reconsidering and setting aside his original decision. [4] Given the various time delays surrounding this complaint which arose in 1995, the unusual circumstances surrounding this application, and the fact that the applicant is self-represented, I would urge the respondent to consider waiving the interest, if any, and penalties associated with this matter. [5] I would dismiss this application for judicial review. This is not an appropriate case for costs. "B. Malone" J.A. I agree "Marshall Rothstein" J.A. I agree "J.D. Denis Pelletier" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-251-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: Antonio Leal v. Employment Insurance Commission of Canada PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: March 2 and April 19, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: MALONE J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. DATED: May 27, 2004 APPEARANCES: Mr. Antonio Leal ON HIS OWN BEHALF Mr. Derek Edwards FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Antonio Leal Brampton, Ontario ON HIS OWN BEHALF Mr. Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT