Latour v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Latour v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-03-11 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 103 File numbers A-344-03 Decision Content Date: 20040311 Docket: A-344-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 103 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: DANIEL LATOUR Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 11, 2004. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 11, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20040311 Docket: A-344-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 103 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: DANIEL LATOUR Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 11, 2004) DÉCARY J.A. [1] The claimant was dismissed when his employer discovered, with supporting evidence, including a videocassette, that during sick leave the claimant had engaged in activities inconsistent with the disability which he claimed on the basis of a medical certificate. [2] The Board of Referees was of the view that if it "found that the claimant misled his employer and destroyed the relationship of trust between them, this would be equivalent to saying that the Board disputed the medical opinion in the appeal docket". The Board then determined that it was "not qualified to confirm or deny a medical diagnosis". [3] The Umpire was clearly correct to note that the Board had not r…
Read full judgment
Latour v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-03-11 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 103 File numbers A-344-03 Decision Content Date: 20040311 Docket: A-344-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 103 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: DANIEL LATOUR Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 11, 2004. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 11, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20040311 Docket: A-344-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 103 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: DANIEL LATOUR Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 11, 2004) DÉCARY J.A. [1] The claimant was dismissed when his employer discovered, with supporting evidence, including a videocassette, that during sick leave the claimant had engaged in activities inconsistent with the disability which he claimed on the basis of a medical certificate. [2] The Board of Referees was of the view that if it "found that the claimant misled his employer and destroyed the relationship of trust between them, this would be equivalent to saying that the Board disputed the medical opinion in the appeal docket". The Board then determined that it was "not qualified to confirm or deny a medical diagnosis". [3] The Umpire was clearly correct to note that the Board had not responded to the question that it had been asked, namely whether the loss of employment was the result of the claimant's misconduct. The Umpire therefore was entitled to reconsider the matter and he did not make a reviewable error in finding that there had been misconduct within the meaning of section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act. [4] The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs. "Robert Décary" J.A. Certified true translation Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-344-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: DANIEL LATOUR Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 11, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (DÉCARY, LÉTOURNEAU, NADON, JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY APPEARANCES: William de Merchant FOR THE APPLICANT Pauline Leroux FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ouillet, Nadon & Associés Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca