Couture v. Canada (Attorney General)
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Umpire erred; applying binding authorities (Locke and Estabrooks) and reviewing the facts, the Court concluded the Umpire reasonably found that leaving the part‑time employment was not the only reasonable solution under s.29, and therefore dismissed the judicial review...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 264
- Parties
- Applicant: MARIO COUTURE; Respondent: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Reasonable Alternative Employment, S.29 Only Reasonable Solution, Benefit Disqualification, Judicial Deference to Administrative Findings
- 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
MARIO COUTURE
Applicant
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's departure from part‑time employment constituted the 'only reasonable solution' within the meaning of s.29 of the Employment Insurance Act
- 2 Whether the Umpire erred in agreeing with the Board of Referees' factual and legal conclusions
- 3 Whether precedent (Canada v. Locke; Estabrooks) required deference to the Umpire's decision
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Umpire erred; applying binding authorities (Locke and Estabrooks) and reviewing the facts, the Court concluded the Umpire reasonably found that leaving the part‑time employment was not the only reasonable solution under s.29, and therefore dismissed the judicial review application.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Couture v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-06-18 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 264 File numbers A-230-01 Decision Content Date: 20020618 Docket: A-230-01 Montréal, Quebec, June 18, 2002 Coram: DÉCARY J.A. NOËLJ.A. NADONJ.A. BETWEEN: MARIO COUTURE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent JUDGMENT The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs. "Robert Décary" J.A. Certified true translation Sophie Debbané, LLB Date: 20020618 Docket: A-230-01 Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 264 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËLJ.A. NADONJ.A. BETWEEN: MARIO COUTURE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on June 18, 2002. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on June 18, 2002. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: NADON J.A. Date: 20020618 Docket: A-230-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 264 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËLJ.A. NADONJ.A. BETWEEN: MARIO COUTURE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on June 18, 2002.) NADONJ.A. [1] The applicant failed to satisfy us that the Umpire had erred when he stated that he was in agreement with the Board of Referees that, having regard to all of the circumstances, the fact for the applicant to leave his part-time employment with Hudson Bay did not constitute the only reasonable solution within the meaning of section 29 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C., 1996, c. 23 (the Act). [2] In light of the decisions by this Court in Canada v. Locke, [1996] 3 F.C. 171 and Estabrooks v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 226 N.R. 153, [1998] F.C.J. No. 493, we are of the view that that conclusion was unavoidable. [3] In Estabrooks, supra, Mr. Justice Stone recognized the severity of the Act in circumstances similar to those in this case and suggested that Parliament revisit the matter. We can only repeat that suggestion to Parliament. [4] Accordingly, the application for judicial review should be dismissed with costs. "Marc Nadon" J.A. Certified true translation Sophie Debbané, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Date: 20020618 Docket: A-230-01 Between: MARIO COUTURE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-230-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: MARIO COUTURE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: June 18, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON CONCURRED IN BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL DATE OF REASONS: June 18, 2002 APPEARANCES: Jean-Guy Ouellet FOR THE APPLICANT Pauline Leroux FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ouellet, Nadon et associés FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec