Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2009

Canada (Attorney General) v. Vallée

2009 FCA 176
AdministrativeJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Canada (Attorney General) v. Vallée Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-05-27 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 176 File numbers A-430-08 Decision Content Date: 20090527 Docket: A-430-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 176 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. BLAIS J.A. BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and YVES VALLÉE Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 27, 2009. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 27, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. Cour d'appel fédérale CANADA Federal Court of Appeal Date: 20090527 Docket : A-430-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 176 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. BLAIS J.A. BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and YVES VALLÉE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 27, 2009) DESJARDINS J.A. [1] We are all of the opinion that the Umpire was not authorized to intervene unless he explained how the decision of the Board of Referees was unreasonable, which he did not do (Attorney General of Canada v. McBride, 2009 FCA 1). [2] The Umpire simply substituted his assessment of the facts for that of the Board of Referees in his analysis of the requirements of subsection 10(5) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, which he could not do. [3] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the Umpire’s decision set aside and the matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his delegate for redetermination on the…

Read full judgment
Canada (Attorney General) v. Vallée
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-05-27
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 176
File numbers
A-430-08
Decision Content
Date: 20090527
Docket: A-430-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 176
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
YVES VALLÉE
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 27, 2009.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 27, 2009.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
Cour d'appel fédérale
CANADA
Federal Court of Appeal
Date: 20090527
Docket : A-430-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 176
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
YVES VALLÉE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 27, 2009)
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] We are all of the opinion that the Umpire was not authorized to intervene unless he explained how the decision of the Board of Referees was unreasonable, which he did not do (Attorney General of Canada v. McBride, 2009 FCA 1).
[2] The Umpire simply substituted his assessment of the facts for that of the Board of Referees in his analysis of the requirements of subsection 10(5) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, which he could not do.
[3] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the Umpire’s decision set aside and the matter referred back to the Chief Umpire or his delegate for redetermination on the basis that the respondent’s appeal must be dismissed.
[4] The applicant claims no costs.
“Alice Desjardins”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Tu-Quynh Trinh
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-430-08
(JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF UMPIRE R. J. MARIN, DATED JUNE 30, 2008, FILE NO. CUB 69486A).
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. YVES VALLÉE
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Pauline Leroux
FOR THE APPLICANT
Jean-Guy Ouellet
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
Ouellet, Nadon & Associés
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases