Nangle v. Canada (Attorney General)

Nangle v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2003-05-12
Neutral citation
2003 FCA 210
File numbers
A-194-02
Decision Content
Date: 20030512
Docket: A-194-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 210
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ELVIN D. NANGLE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, May 6, 2003.
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, May 12, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT:
Date: 20030512
Docket: A-194-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 210
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ELVIN D. NANGLE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT
[1] Two issues are raised in this application for judicial review. The first is whether Umpire Riche in his decision of September 28, 2001 erred in finding that there were no new facts to warrant reconsideration of his earlier discussion of March 25, 2001. The second issue is, assuming there were new facts, whether there was sufficient evidence before the Umpire to allow a determination that the applicant knowingly had made false or misleading representations to the Employment Insurance Commission (Commission).
[2] Section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act (Act) permits an Umpire to rescind a decision if new facts are presented or if the decision was given without knowledge of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact.
[3] In his application for reconsideration, Mr. Nangle's principal complaint was that he did not consent to the tape recording of the hearing before the Board of Referees. In our analysis, this was correctly rejected by the Umpire; there being no new facts, as this same issue had already been raised at the first hearing before Umpire Riche. We would also note, that before us, the applicant acknowledged that he knew the proceedings were being taped but could give no answer as to why he did not object at that time.
[4] We are also satisfied that the Umpire did not err in upholding the Board of Referees' decision that Mr. Nangle knowingly made false or misleading statements to the Commission. Where, as here, it is apparent from the evidence that the applicant incorrectly answered the simple questions posed in the report cards, the burden of proof shifts to Mr. Nangle to explain why those incorrect answers were given. To say, as he did before us, that the Commission was slow to pay money owed to him and that it was expedient to retain two payments so as to balance accounts is no answer. As Umpire Riche noted, that is tantamount to taking the law in one's own hands.
[5] In the event that the applicant can demonstrate financial hardship and to the extent the Act permits, we would endorse the Umpire's recommendation that the penalty be reduced and an orderly system of monthly repayments be considered by the respondent.
[6] Finally, should Mr. Nangle be able to demonstrate that for any subsequent period that he was entitled to but did not claim benefits, that avenue for set-off to the extent permitted by the Act might be pursued by him as well.
[7] The application for judicial review will be dismissed. No costs were sought and none should be awarded.
"A. M. Linden"
J.A.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
"B. Malone"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-194-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: ELVIN D. NANGLE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, MAY 6th, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: BY THE COURT
DELIVERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003.
DATED: MONDAY, MAY 12th , 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Elvin D. Nangle
For the Applicant
Derek Edwards
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Elvin D. Nangle
470 Malaga Road
Mississauga, ON
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent