Canada (Attorney General) v. Bhawan

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bhawan
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-09-16
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 302
File numbers
A-27-04
Decision Content
Date: 20040916
Docket: A-27-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 302
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
KRISTENDATT BHAWAN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 16, 2004.
Judgment delivered Orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 16, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20040916
Docket: A-27-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 302
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
KRISTENDATT BHAWAN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 16, 2004)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] This application for judicial review should be granted.
[2] The Umpire erroneously ruled that the respondent was entitled to benefits when, in fact, the respondent had not accumulated the 700 hours required under subsection 7(2) of the Employment Insurance Act (the "Act") for entitlement to benefits. The respondent resided in North York (Toronto), an area that has a regional rate of unemployment less than 6%.
[3] The Umpire also erred when he reduced from serious to minor the classification of the violation of the Act by the respondent. He found as a fact that there was an attempt to defraud the Commission. In these circumstances, subsection 7.1(6) of the Act applies and, at minimum, the value of the violation is the amount of the overpayment of benefits resulting from the respondent's acts or omissions.
[4] In this case, the amount of the overpayment was $2,704.00 and qualified as a serious violation under subparagraph 7.1(5)(a)(ii) of the Act. The respondent appeared at the hearing and asked that the penalty be waived. He was informed by counsel for the applicant that he could apply to the Commission for a waiver or a reduction of the penalty in view of the hardship that it causes him. We have no jurisdiction to waive the penalty.
[5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed without costs, the decision of the Umpire will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Chief Umpire, or an Umpire that he designates, for a new determination reinstating the Commission's cancellation of benefits and the classification of the notice of violation to "serious".
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-27-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. KRISTENDATT BHAWAN
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (LÉTOURNEAU J.A., SHARLOW J.A., MALONE J.A.)
DELIVERED ORALLY FROM
THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Sadian Campbell FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Kristendatt Bhawan FOR THE RESPONDENT (Self-Represented)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Kristendatt Bhawan
Downsview, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT (Self-Represented)