Canada (Attorney General) v. Lemay
The umpire erred as a matter of law by treating s.43(6) as requiring knowledge and by addressing an issue not raised before the board; written submissions indicating the overpayment amount can amount to notification under s.43(1); therefore the application for judicial review is allowed, the umpire’s decision is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 337
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Attorney General of Canada; Defendant: Mario Lemay
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review (administrative Law) Under the Unemployment Insurance Act / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the umpire reversed; matter referred back to the chief umpire to be decided on the assumption that the Attorney General’s appeal should be allowed and the Commission’s decision restored; no costs.
- Legal Topics
- Unemployment Insurance Act S.43(6), Overpayment Notification Under S.43(1), False or Misleading Statement, Procedure Before Board of Referees and Umpire
- 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
Attorney General of Canada
Plaintiff
Mario Lemay
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Law) Under the Unemployment Insurance Act / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.43(6) requires that a false or misleading statement be made knowingly
- 2 Whether indication of the overpayment amount in written submissions constituted notification under s.43(1)
- 3 Whether the umpire considered an issue not raised before the board of referees
Ratio Decidendi
The umpire erred as a matter of law by treating s.43(6) as requiring knowledge and by addressing an issue not raised before the board; written submissions indicating the overpayment amount can amount to notification under s.43(1); therefore the application for judicial review is allowed, the umpire’s decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the chief umpire to be decided on the assumption that the Attorney General’s appeal should be allowed and the Commission’s decision restored.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the umpire reversed; matter referred back to the chief umpire to be decided on the assumption that the Attorney General’s appeal should be allowed and the Commission’s decision restored; no costs.
Orders
- Allow the application for judicial review
- Reverse the decision of the umpire
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Lemay Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-09-17 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 337 File numbers A-172-01 Decision Content Date: 20020917 Docket: A‑172‑01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 337 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff and MARIO LEMAY Defendant Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2002. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2002. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20020917 Docket: A‑172‑01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 337 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff and MARIO LEMAY Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2002.) DÉCARY J.A. [1] We have heard this application for judicial review in the absence of the defendant, who was duly notified of the date and time of the hearing. The defendant also filed no record. Additionally, he did not appear before the board of referees. [2] The umpire, and before him the board of referees, erred in their interpretation of s. 43(6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. As this Court held in Canada (Attorney General) v. Pilote (1998), 243 N.R. 203, the false or misleading statement or representation referred to in the said section does not have to be made “knowingly”, unlike that mentioned in s. 33. [3] Additionally, in finding that there was no notification of the overpayment in the case at bar the umpire wrongly addressed a question that was not raised before the board of referees. In any event, this Court has already held that indication of the amount of the overpayment in the written submissions made to the board of referees by the Commission - as in the case at bar - could serve as a “notification” within the meaning of s. 43(1) of the Act (see Attorney General of Canada v. Rouleau, A‑930‑96, unreported judgment of October 31, 1997; Attorney General of Canada v. Gagnon, A‑676‑96, unreported judgment of May 28, 1997). [4] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the umpire reversed and the matter referred back to the chief umpire or an umpire designated by him to be again decided on the assumption that the appeal filed by the Attorney General of Canada from the decision of the board of referees should be allowed and the Commission’s decision restored. In the circumstances, no costs will be awarded. “Robert Décary” Judge Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Date: 20020917 Docket: A‑172‑01 Between: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff and MARIO LEMAY Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION SOLICITORS OF RECORD FILE: A‑172‑01 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and MARIO LEMAY PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: September 17, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. DATE OF REASONS: September 17, 2002 APPEARANCES: Paul Deschênes FOR THE PLAINTIFF SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg FOR THE PLAINTIFF Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec