Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2005

Parsons v. Canada (Attorney General)

2005 FCA 248
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

Parsons v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-06-29 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 248 File numbers A-629-04 Decision Content Date: 20050629 Docket: A-629-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 248 CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD NOËL J.A. NADONJ.A. BETWEEN: KRISTOPHER PARSONS Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 29, 2005. Judgment delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 29, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: NADON J.A. Date: 20050629 Docket: A-629-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 248 CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD NOËL J.A. NADONJ.A. BETWEEN: KRISTOPHER PARSONS Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 29, 2005) NADON J.A. [1] We all agree that the Umpire was justified in intervening and making the decision that the Board of Referees should have made, given that the Board of Referees failed to consider relevant and significant evidence supporting the allegations of the applicant's misconduct. [2] After reviewing the evidence, the Umpire determined that there could be no doubt that by his absences and tardiness, the applicant showed a lack of concern with respect to his employer. [3] Accordingly, in the Umpire's opinion, the Commission's decision to the effect that the applicant had lost his employment because of his misconduct should be reestablished. [4] In our opinion, in so finding, the…

Read full judgment
Parsons v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-06-29
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 248
File numbers
A-629-04
Decision Content
Date: 20050629
Docket: A-629-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 248
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
NOËL J.A.
NADONJ.A.
BETWEEN:
KRISTOPHER PARSONS
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 29, 2005.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 29, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: NADON J.A.
Date: 20050629
Docket: A-629-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 248
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
NOËL J.A.
NADONJ.A.
BETWEEN:
KRISTOPHER PARSONS
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 29, 2005)
NADON J.A.
[1] We all agree that the Umpire was justified in intervening and making the decision that the Board of Referees should have made, given that the Board of Referees failed to consider relevant and significant evidence supporting the allegations of the applicant's misconduct.
[2] After reviewing the evidence, the Umpire determined that there could be no doubt that by his absences and tardiness, the applicant showed a lack of concern with respect to his employer.
[3] Accordingly, in the Umpire's opinion, the Commission's decision to the effect that the applicant had lost his employment because of his misconduct should be reestablished.
[4] In our opinion, in so finding, the Umpire did not err in any way that would warrant our intervention. Further, it is obvious to us that the Board of Referees, in finding as it did, did not in any way understand the concept of misconduct supporting the Commission's decision.
[5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-629-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Kristopher Parsons v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 29, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (Richard C.J., Noël J.A., Nadon J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH (BY): Nadon J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Pierre Étienne Daignault
Louis Michaud
FOR THE APPLICANT
Alexandre Kaufman
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CLINIQUE JURIDIQUE POPULAIRE DE PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL INC.
Hawkesbury, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sim, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases