Canada (Attorney Genreral) v. Michel Geoffroy

Canada (Attorney Genreral) v. Michel Geoffroy Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-04-04 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 105 File numbers A-113-00 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20010404 Docket: A-113-00 MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, APRIL 4, 2001 Coram: DESJARDINS J.A. DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. Between: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff AND MICHEL GEOFFROY Defendant JUDGMENT The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to the chief umpire or an umpire appointed by him to be again decided on the basis that the Commission's appeal should be allowed and the board of referees' decision set aside. Alice Desjardins J.A. Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a. Date: 20010404 Docket: A-113-00 Neutral reference: 2001 FCA 105 Coram: DESJARDINS J.A. DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. Between: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff AND MICHEL GEOFFROY Defendant Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Monday, April 2, 2001 Judgment rendered at Montréal, Quebec on Wednesday, April 4, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20010404 Docket: A-113-00 Neutral reference: 2001 FCA 105 Coram: DESJARDINS J.A. DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. Between: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff AND MICHEL GEOFFROY Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DÉCARY J.A. [1] Section 7.1 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that an insured person who accumulates one or more violations in the 260 weeks before making his or her initial claim for benefit will have the number of hours required to qualify for benefits increased in the manner indicated in the said section. Subsection 1 of that section reads as follows: 7.1 (1) The number of hours that an insured person, other than a new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force, requires under section 7 to qualify for benefits is increased to the number provided in the following table if the insured person accumulates one or more violations in the 260 weeks before making their initial claim for benefit. 7.1 (1) Le nombre d'heures d'emploi assurable requis au titre de l'article 7 est majoré conformément au tableau qui suit, en fonction du taux régional de chômage applicable, à l'égard de l'assuré autre qu'une personne qui devient ou redevient membre de la population active s'il est responsable d'une ou de plusieurs violations au cours des deux cent soixante semaines précédant sa demande initiale de prestations. [2] Section 7.1(4) also reads as follows: 7.1 (4) An insured person accumulates a violation if in any of the following circumstances the Commission issues a notice of violation to the person: (a) one or more penalties are imposed on the person under section 38, 39, 41.1 or 65.1, as a result of acts or omissions mentioned in section 38, 39 or 65.1; (b) the person is found guilty of one or more offences under section 135 or 136 as a result of acts or omissions mentioned in those sections; or (c) the person is found guilty of one or more offences under the Criminal Code as a result of acts or omissions relating to the application of this Act. 7.1 (4) Il y a violation lorsque le prestataire se voit donner un avis de violation parce que, selon le cas: a) il a perpétré un ou plusieurs actes délictueux prévus à l'article 38, 39 ou 65.1 pour lesquels des pénalités lui ont été infligées au titre de l'un ou l'autre de ces articles, ou de l'article 41.1; b) il a été trouvé coupable d'une ou plusieurs infractions prévues à l'article 135 ou 136; c) il a été trouvé coupable d'une ou plusieurs infractions au Code criminel pour tout acte ou omission ayant trait à l'application de la présente loi. [3] The language used in s. 7.1(4) led the umpire to decide that the Commission had discretion to issue a violation notice and that the exercise of that discretion could be reviewed by the board of referees. He affirmed the opinion of the board of referees, which said that it considered [TRANSLATION] "that in view of the seriousness of the penalty already imposed, it would be excessive to add a penalty pursuant to s. 7.1 of the Act and that in the case of this first offence a warning would suffice". [4] The umpire erred in his interpretation of s. 7.1. [5] Although the wording of this section is not the very best, it is clear that s. 7.1(1) lays down the rule that there will be an automatic increase in the number of hours of employment once an insured person commits one or more violations in the 260 weeks before making his or her initial claim for benefit. [6] Section 7.1(4) may, by the use of the words "if . . . the Commission issues a notice of violation" (in French, "lorsque le prestataire se voit donner un avis de violation"), give the impression that there is only a violation if in its discretion the Commission issues a notice of violation. In my opinion, such an interpretation ignores the context and the mandatory words used in subs. (1). All that subs. (4) says is that the automatic increase in the number of hours required can only be set up against an insured person once a notice of violation has been issued by the Commission in the cases mentioned in that subsection. [7] I am well aware that if an ambiguity exists in the Employment Insurance Act, this ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the insured person. However, clumsy drafting of legislation is not the same thing as ambiguity. In the case at bar, there can be no doubt that Parliament intended and acted to ensure that every violation of the type described in s. 7.1(4) would result in an increase in the number of hours required to qualify for benefits, and the Commission would not have any discretion in this regard. [8] The application for judicial review should therefore be allowed, the umpire's decision set aside and the matter referred back to the chief umpire or his representative to be again decided on the basis that the Commission's appeal should be allowed and the board of referees' decision set aside. Robert Décary J.A. I concur in these reasons. Alice Desjardins J.A. I concur. Marc Noël J.A. Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Date: 20010404 Docket: A-113-00 Between: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff AND MICHEL GEOFFROY Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD FILE: A-113-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Plaintiff AND MICHEL GEOFFROY Defendant PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: April 2, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A. DATED: April 4, 2001 APPEARANCES: Carole Bureau FOR THE PLAINTIFF Michel Geoffroy FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg FOR THE PLAINTIFF Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec