Orozco v. Canada (Attorney General)

Orozco v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-11-04 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 412 File numbers A-292-02 Decision Content Date: 20031104 Docket: A-292-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 412 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: JUAN JOSE JONFE OROZCO ET AL.[1] Applicants and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on November 4, 2003. Judgment from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 4, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20031104 Docket: A-292-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 412 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: JUAN JOSE JONFE OROZCO ET AL.1 Applicants and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 4, 2003) DÉCARY J.A. [1] On the question of the interruption of earnings, the Court adopts the reasons rendered this day in Dion (A-251-02). [2] On the question of the quantum of the penalty, which the board of referees had adjusted to 50%, the Court considers that the board of referees provided sufficient explanation of the reasons leading it to conclude that the Commission had not exercised its discretion in the manner required by precedent and that the umpire had even less reason to intervene to set this quantum at 100% as counsel for the respondent had said they were satisfied with a 50% quantum. [3] The application for judicial review will therefore be allowed in the cases where the question of the penalty was raised, namely cases A-297-02, A-299-02 and A-302-02, the decision of the umpire in those cases will be set aside as to the disposition dealing with the penalty, and the matter referred back to the chief umpire or to an umpire designated by him to be again decided on the basis that the quantum of the penalty is that set by the board of referees. In the circumstances, each party will pay its own costs. [4] The application for judicial review will be dismissed in the other cases, namely cases A-292-02, A-303-02, A-294-02 and A-498-02, with costs to the respondent in the manner prescribed in Dion. [5] A copy of these reasons and the judgment signed in this case will be included in the other records to stand in place of the original. "Robert Décary" J.A. Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. Applicant Number of Decision Challenged Court No. Juan Jose Jonfe Orozco CUB 53776 A-292-02 CUB 53777 A-297-02 CUB 53778 A-299-02 CUB 53779 A-302-02 CUB 53780 A-303-02 Ingrid Fenocchi CUB 53781 A-294-02 Jorge Sandoval CUB 53782 A-498-02 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-292-02 (APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION DECISION ON MARCH 1, 2002, IN CASE CUB 53776). STYLE OF CAUSE: JUAN JOSE JONFE OROZCO ET AL. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: November 4, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT : (DÉCARY, NOËL AND NADON JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DÉCARY J.A. APPEARANCES: William De Merchant FOR THE APPLICANTS Pauline Leroux FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: OUELLET, NADON & ASSOCIÉS FOR THE APPLICANTS Montréal, Quebec MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec [1] List of six application for judicial review dockets in this group. 1 List of six application for judicial review dockets in this group.