Paquette v. Canada (Attorney General)

Paquette v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-09-22 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 309 File numbers A-597-05 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20060922 Docket: A-597-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 309 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: BENOIT PAQUETTE Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, September 13, 2006. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, September 22, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A. NADON J.A. Date: 20060922 Docket: A-597-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 309 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: BENOIT PAQUETTE Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] This application for judicial review raises two issues: (a) Was the applicant required to make a claim for benefits pursuant to section 26 of the Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332 (Regulations) during the waiting period provided for in section 13 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the Act)? (b) Assuming that he was under such a duty, has the applicant, who did not meet that duty within the prescribed time, shown that he had good cause for the delay in making his claim for benefits within the meaning of subsection 10(5) of the Act? [2] Both issues were put before the umpire. Surprisingly, in his decision CUB 64561, the umpire never ruled on the first issue. As to the second one, he held, based on Attorney General of Canada v. Albrecht, A-172-85 (F.C.A.), where it was held that ignorance of the law or negligence do not establish good cause, that the applicant had not met the onus on him under subsection 10(5) of the Act. But he thereby failed to ask whether the applicant had proved the existence of a good cause by showing that he had acted as a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted to ensure compliance with his rights and obligations under the Act: see Albrecht, supra and Attorney General of Canada v. Beaudin, 2005 FCA 123; Canada (Attorney General) v. Smith, [1993] F.C.J. No. 368; Canada (Attorney General) v. Rouleau, [1995] F.C.J. No. 1203; and Shebib v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 281. [3] For a clearer understanding of the issues and the reasons for that decision, I set out hereunder section 6, subsection 10(5), section 13 and sections 49 and 50 of the Act as well as section 26 of the Regulations: Employment Insurance Act Interpretation 6. (1) In this Part, … “disentitled” means not entitled under section 13, 18, 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 49 or 50 or under the regulations; Définitions et interprétation 6. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente partie. […] « inadmissible » Qui n’est pas admissible au titre des articles 13, 18, 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 49 ou 50, ou au titre d’un règlement. 10. … (5) A claim for benefits, other than an initial claim for benefits, made after the time prescribed for making the claim shall be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the claimant shows that there was good cause for the delay throughout the period beginning on the earlier day and ending on the day when the claim was made. 10. […] (5) Lorsque le prestataire présente une demande de prestations, autre qu’une demande initiale, après le délai prévu par règlement pour la présenter, la demande doit être considérée comme ayant été présentée à une date antérieure si celui-ci démontre qu’il avait, durant toute la période écoulée entre cette date antérieure et la date à laquelle il présente sa demande, un motif valable justifiant son retard. 13. A claimant is not entitled to be paid benefits in a benefit period until, after the beginning of the benefit period, the claimant has served a two week waiting period that begins with a week of unemployment for which benefits would otherwise be payable. 13. Au cours d’une période de prestations, le prestataire n’est pas admissible au bénéfice des prestations tant qu’il ne s’est pas écoulé, à la suite de l’ouverture de cette période de prestations, un délai de carence de deux semaines qui débute par une semaine de chômage pour laquelle des prestations devraient sans cela être versées. 49. (1) A person is not entitled to receive benefits for a week of unemployment until the person makes a claim for benefits for that week in accordance with section 50 and the regulations and proves that 49. (1) Nul n’est admissible au bénéfice des prestations pour une semaine de chômage avant d’avoir présenté une demande de prestations pour cette semaine conformément à l’article 50 et aux règlements et prouvé que : (a) the person meets the requirements for receiving benefits; and a) d’une part, il remplit les conditions requises pour recevoir des prestations; (b) no circumstances or conditions exist that have the effect of disentitling or disqualifying the person from receiving benefits. b) d’autre part, il n’existe aucune circonstance ou condition ayant pour effet de l’exclure du bénéfice des prestations ou de le rendre inadmissible à celui-ci. (2) The Commission shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant on the issue of whether any circumstances or conditions exist that have the effect of disqualifying the claimant under section 30 or disentitling the claimant under section 31, 32 or 33, if the evidence on each side of the issue is equally balanced. (2) La Commission accorde le bénéfice du doute au prestataire dans la détermination de l’existence de circonstances ou de conditions ayant pour effet de le rendre inadmissible au bénéfice des prestations aux termes des articles 31, 32 ou 33, ou de l’en exclure aux termes de l’article 30, si les éléments de preuve présentés de part et d’autre à cet égard sont équivalents. (3) On receiving a claim for benefits, the Commission shall decide whether benefits are payable to the claimant for that week and notify the claimant of its decision. (3) Sur réception d’une demande de prestations, la Commission décide si des prestations sont payables ou non au prestataire pour la semaine en cause et lui notifie sa décision. 50. (1) A claimant who fails to fulfil or comply with a condition or requirement under this section is not entitled to receive benefits for as long as the condition or requirement is not fulfilled or complied with. 50. (1) Tout prestataire qui ne remplit pas une condition ou ne satisfait pas à une exigence prévue par le présent article n’est pas admissible au bénéfice des prestations tant qu’il n’a pas rempli cette condition ou satisfait à cette exigence. (2) A claim for benefits shall be made in the manner directed at the office of the Commission that serves the area in which the claimant resides, or at such other place as is prescribed or directed by the Commission. (2) Toute demande de prestations est présentée de la manière ordonnée au bureau de la Commission qui dessert le territoire où réside le prestataire ou à tout autre endroit prévu par règlement ou ordonné par la Commission. (3) A claim for benefits shall be made by completing a form supplied or approved by the Commission, in the manner set out in instructions of the Commission. (3) Toute demande de prestations est présentée sur un formulaire fourni ou approuvé par la Commission et rempli conformément aux instructions de celle-ci. (4) A claim for benefits for a week of unemployment in a benefit period shall be made within the prescribed time. (4) Toute demande de prestations pour une semaine de chômage comprise dans une période de prestations est présentée dans le délai prévu par règlement. (5) The Commission may at any time require a claimant to provide additional information about their claim for benefits. (5) La Commission peut exiger d’autres renseignements du prestataire relativement à toute demande de prestations. (6) The Commission may require a claimant or group or class of claimants to be at a suitable place at a suitable time in order to make a claim for benefits in person or provide additional information about a claim. (6) La Commission peut demander à tout prestataire ou à tout groupe ou catégorie de prestataires de se rendre à une heure raisonnable à un endroit convenable pour présenter en personne une demande de prestations ou fournir des renseignements exigés en vertu du paragraphe (5). (7) For the purpose of proving that a claimant is available for work, the Commission may require the claimant to register for employment at an agency administered by the Government of Canada or a provincial government and to report to the agency at such reasonable times as the Commission or agency directs. (7) Pour obtenir d’un prestataire la preuve de sa disponibilité pour le travail, la Commission peut exiger qu’il s’inscrive comme demandeur d’emploi à un organisme de placement fédéral ou provincial et qu’il communique avec cet organisme à des moments raisonnables que la Commission ou l’organisme lui fixera. (8) For the purpose of proving that a claimant is available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment, the Commission may require the claimant to prove that the claimant is making reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment. (8) Pour obtenir d’un prestataire la preuve de sa disponibilité pour le travail et de son incapacité d’obtenir un emploi convenable, la Commission peut exiger qu’il prouve qu’il fait des démarches habituelles et raisonnables pour trouver un emploi convenable. (9) A claimant shall provide the mailing address of their normal place of residence, unless otherwise permitted by the Commission. (9) Tout prestataire est tenu, sauf autorisation contraire de la Commission, de fournir l’adresse postale de sa résidence habituelle. (10) The Commission may waive or vary any of the conditions and requirements of this section or the regulations whenever in its opinion the circumstances warrant the waiver or variation for the benefit of a claimant or a class or group of claimants. (10) La Commission peut suspendre ou modifier les conditions ou exigences du présent article ou des règlements chaque fois que, à son avis, les circonstances le justifient pour le bien du prestataire ou un groupe ou une catégorie de prestataires. Employment Insurance Regulations UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Claim for Benefits 26. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a claim for benefits for a week of unemployment in a benefit period shall be made by a claimant within three weeks after the week for which benefits are claimed. PRESTATIONS DE CHÔMAGE Demande de prestations 26. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le prestataire qui demande des prestations pour une semaine de chômage comprise dans une période de prestations présente sa demande dans les trois semaines qui suivent cette semaine. (2) Where a claimant has not made a claim for benefits for four or more consecutive weeks, the first claim for benefits after that period for a week of unemployment shall be made within one week after the week for which benefits are claimed. (2) Le prestataire qui n’a pas demandé de prestations durant quatre semaines consécutives ou plus et qui en fait la demande par la suite pour une semaine de chômage présente sa demande dans la semaine qui suit cette dernière. Duty to make a claim for benefits during the waiting period in section 13 of the Act [4] Section 13 provides that a person who qualifies for a benefit period is not entitled to be paid benefits for a two week period that begins with a week of unemployment for which, had it not been for this disentitlement, he or she would have received benefits. This is what is referred to as the waiting period. [5] The applicant’s counsel submitted before us, as he did before the umpire, that this Court has previously held, in Attorney General of Canada v. Kachman, A-757-85 (F.C.A.), that the statutory provisions then in force did not require “that a claim for benefit be made for a week for which an applicant for benefit has been disqualified or disentitled” (my emphasis). This decision by this Court, where there was both a disqualification for a six week period and a disentitlement for non-availability, was followed in Bennett, CUB 25520A, March 21, 1995, and in Johnston, CUB 31135, October 27, 1995. [6] The parties agree that the statutory provisions found in the Employment Insurance Act of 1996 are, in essence and for all practical purposes, the same as those of the Unemployment Insurance Act that was in force when Kachman was handed down. [7] The respondent’s counsel strove to restrict the scope of that holding solely to cases of disqualification, but unsuccessfully because, in my view, the holding likewise clearly covers cases of disentitlement. [8] This Court has acknowledged that it would be easier for the Commission to follow up on compliance with the conditions for entitlement to benefits if a claim for benefits other than an initial claim was submitted for each week in which the claimant is disqualified for or disentitled to benefits. But it has been unable to find any statutory basis for making this a requirement. At page 5 of Kachman, Chief Justice Thurlow wrote, on behalf of a unanimous Court: The submission, as I understand it, was that the effect of these provisions was to require the respondent not only to prove at some point that he was unemployed and available for work in each week of the six weeks for which he had been disqualified for benefit, even though he had accepted the disqualification and did not appeal therefrom, but to prove such facts weekly by filing a claim for benefit on a form provided by the Commission, and this even though because of the disqualification he no longer expected or could expect such a claim to be accepted. It is quite correct that the notice of disqualification expressly warned the respondent to send in claims for each of the weeks of disqualification. It is not inconceivable that for each claimant to do so would help the Commission to determine whether the claimant was otherwise qualified to receive benefit and whether the particular week was to be one of the weeks of disqualification. But, in my opinion, it is not a requirement that can be found in or read into subsection 43(1) or subsection 54(1) or section 55 or any of the other provisions of the Act or the Regulations to which the Court was referred. Indeed, such an interpretation would seem rather out of harmony with subsection 54(2) which provides that 54. (2) Upon receiving a claim for benefit, the Commission shall decide whether or not benefit is payable to the claimant for that week and notify him of its decision. a procedure that seems superfluous when the person seeking benefit has already been told he is disqualified and will not receive it. [Emphasis added] [9] To qualify for benefits for a week of unemployment, a claimant must, under section 49 of the Act, make a claim for that week. He must do so within the time provided for in section 26 of the Regulations. As section 49 of the Act requires, he must also establish that there are no circumstances or conditions that disentitle him from receiving benefits. Now, section 13 of the Act provides for one circumstance that specifically does disentitle him for a period of two weeks. Thus, he cannot, under the Act, receive benefits for each of those two weeks. It is superfluous and unnecessary, then, for a claimant to try to obtain benefits since, to paraphrase the Chief Justice in Kachman, he already knows that he is disentitled to benefits and will not receive them for that period. [10] Subsection 49(1) of the Act and subsection 26(1) of the Regulations correspond to subsection 54(1) of the old Unemployment Insurance Act and subsection 34(1) of the old Regulations. As to these provisions on the basis of which the payment of benefits was denied in Kachman, the Chief Justice wrote: Its basis is the failure to file a claim for benefit for the weeks of disentitlement and disqualification and to do so within the time prescribed by subsection 34(1) of the Regulations for filing a claim for benefit. Subsection 54(1) is a negative provision which restricts the substantive rights to benefit conferred by subsection 17(1) and section 19 of the Act. It denies a claimant's right to benefit for a week of unemployment until he makes a claim for benefit for that week and proves that he is entitled to benefit and is not disqualified. It neither says nor implies that a claimant who is disqualified must nevertheless make a claim for benefit which would be foredoomed to failure because he simply could not prove that he was not disqualified. Subsection 34(1) of the Regulations does nothing more than prescribe a time limit for making a claim for benefit for a week. [11] The respondent’s counsel submitted that the disentitlement imposed by the section differs from the other sorts or forms of disentitlement provided for elsewhere in the Act, and that, therefore, if the Kachman doctrine extends to disentitlement, it does not cover the section 13 waiting period disentitlement. The difficulty with this argument is that Parliament did not consider it appropriate to recognize this kind of distinction with respect to the waiting period disentitlement. On the contrary, it made it similar to the others. For the purposes of the Act, in effect, it defined disentitlement in section 6 and this definition covers the section 13 disentitlement in relation to the waiting period. [12] In short, I am not persuaded that this case is distinguishable factually and legally from Kachman. Therefore, the umpire should not have intervened and set aside the decision of the board of referees. Has the applicant proved the existence of good cause for the delay in making his claim for benefits for the period from December 20, 2003 to January 4, 2004? [13] Since I have held that the applicant did not have to make such claims for the period concerned, it is unnecessary to address this issue. I will just say that if I had had to do so, I would have held like umpire Stevenson in the Bennett case, supra, and approved the following reasons that he gave at page 2 of his decision: It is not a case of a claimant failing to file an initial claim. It is a case of a claimant failing to return his report card with respect to his waiting period because he immediately thereafter became employed and was thus not entitled to receive a benefit. It is not unreasonable or imprudent for a person in that situation to do what Mr. Bennett did. The established benefit period had not expired nor had it been cancelled or terminated. It was merely suspended during the claimant's re-employment. Having acted as any reasonably prudent person would have done, Mr. Bennett has shown good cause for any delay in filing the report card. [14] For these reasons, I would allow the application for judicial review with costs, I would set aside the decision of the umpire and I would refer back the matter to the Chief Umpire or the person he will appoint for redetermination on the basis that the Commission’s appeal from the decision of the board of referees, dated September 20, 2004, at Montréal, must be dismissed. “Gilles Létourneau” J.A. “I concur Robert Décary J.A.” “I concur M. Nadon J.A.” Certified true translation François Brunet, LLB, BCL FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-597-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: Benoît Paquette v. The Attorney General of Canada PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: September 13, 2006 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Létourneau J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A. Nadon J.A. DATED: September 22, 2006 APPEARANCES: Michel Letreiz FOR THE APPLICANT Carole Bureau FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Michel Letreiz FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT Date: 20060922 Docket: A-597-05 Ottawa, Ontario, September 22, 2006 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: BENOIT PAQUETTE Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent JUDGMENT The application for judicial review is allowed with costs. The decision of the umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to the Chief Umpire or the person he will appoint for redetermination on the basis that the Commission’s appeal from the decision of the board of referees, dated September 20, 2004, at Montréal, must be dismissed. “Robert Décary” J.A. Certified true translation François Brunet, LLB, BCL