Auclair v. Canada (Attorney General)

Auclair v. Canada (Attorney General)

Umpire Martin was required to intervene because the Board of Referees exceeded its role by addressing the appropriateness of dismissal and mischaracterized the nature of the claimant's conduct; the Board's factual conclusions regarding wilfulness were inconsistent with the claimant's admission that his abusive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 FCA 19
Parties
Applicant: Christian Auclair; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review (federal Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Misconduct and Loss of Employment, Scope of Tribunal Fact‑finding, Remedial Intervention by Umpire
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Employment Law Social Security (employment Insurance) Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Misconduct and Loss of Employment Scope of Tribunal Fact‑finding Remedial Intervention by Umpire

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Auclair

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review (federal Court of Appeal)

  1. 1 Whether Umpire Martin was entitled or required to intervene
  2. 2 Whether the claimant lost his employment through misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the Board of Referees exceeded its role by assessing the appropriateness of dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Umpire Martin was required to intervene because the Board of Referees exceeded its role by addressing the appropriateness of dismissal and mischaracterized the nature of the claimant's conduct; the Board's factual conclusions regarding wilfulness were inconsistent with the claimant's admission that his abusive remarks were deliberate.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.