Pannu v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pannu v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-03-04
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 90
File numbers
A-147-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040304
Docket: A-147-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 90
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
RAJ PANNU
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 3, 2004.
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on March 4, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
MALONE J.A.
Date: 20040304
Docket: A-147-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 90
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
RAJ PANNU
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of an Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act. The Employment Insurance Commission denied the applicant 15 weeks sickness benefits because she had accumulated no hours of insurable employment during her extended qualifying period. The Board of Referees dismissed her appeal and the Umpire in turn also dismissed her appeal.
[2] This Court must also dismiss her application for judicial review. The Employment Insurance Act requires that a claimant for sickness benefits accumulate a minimum number of insurable hours of employment in her qualifying period. The applicant has not done so.
[3] The applicant's complaint is really against the Employment Insurance Act. She says she has contributed during her entire period of employment and that it is unfair that she should be denied her sickness benefits now. However, the Employment Insurance Act is an insurance plan and like other insurance plans, claimants must meet the conditions of the plan to obtain benefits. In this case, the applicant does not meet those conditions and is therefore not entitled to benefits.
[4] While the applicant's case is a sympathetic one, the Court cannot rewrite the Employment Insurance Act to accommodate her.
[5] The application for judicial review should be dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
"I agree
J. D. Denis Pelletier"
"I agree
B. Malone"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-147-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: RAJ PANNU
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 3, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A
MALONE J.A.
DATED: MARCH 4, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Raj Pannu
FOR THE APPLICANT,
ON HER OWN BEHALF
Ms. Sharon McGovern
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Raj Pannu
Mississauga, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT,
ON HER OWN BEHALF
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT