Ducharme v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ducharme v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-03-18
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 109
File numbers
A-618-00
Decision Content
Date: 20020318
Docket: A-618-00
Montréal, Quebec, March 18, 2002
Coram: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARYJ.A.
NOËLJ.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE DUCHARME
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is allowed with costs, the decision of the Umpire is set aside, and the matter is referred back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire designated by him for
re-hearing, on the basis that the appeal from the decision of the board of referees must be dismissed.
J. Richard
C.J.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
Date: 20020318
Docket: A-618-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 109
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARYJ.A.
NOËLJ.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE DUCHARME
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: RICHARD C.J.
Date: 20020318
Docket: A-618-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 109
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARYJ.A.
NOËLJ.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE DUCHARME
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec,
on March 18, 2002.)
RICHARD C.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Umpire (CUB 49105) under the Employment Insurance Act dated July 20, 2000, allowing the appeal by the Employment Insurance Commission, setting aside the decision of the board of referees finding that the applicant was disentitled to benefits, and restoring the previous decision of the Commission.
[2] We are of the opinion that the application must be allowed.
[3] In addition to having access to the relevant exhibits, which were also in the record before the Umpire, the members of the board of referees had the advantage of hearing the claimant's testimony.
[4] It appears from the decision of the board of referees that that testimony was inconsistent with what was said in the claimant's statutory declaration (Exhibit 5), which was that his employment was not casual.
[5] The board of referees considered a question of fact and found that the claimant was credible.
[6] There was no reason for the Umpire to intervene and substitute his assessment of the claimant's credibility.
[7] The application for judicial review will be allowed with costs, the decision of the Umpire will be set aside, and the matter will be referred back to the Chief Umpire or an umpire
designated by him for re-hearing on the basis that the appeal from the decision of the board of referees will be dismissed.
"J. Richard"
C.J.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20020318
Docket: A-618-00
Between:
CLAUDE DUCHARME
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-618-00
STYLE OF CAUSE:
CLAUDE DUCHARME
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 18, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY RICHARD C.J.:
CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A.
Noël J.A.
DATED: March 18, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Alain Léonard FOR THE APPLICANT
Paul Deschênes FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léonard, Lauzière & Cloutier FOR THE APPLICANT
Saint-Jérôme, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec