Canada (Attorney General) v. Gagné
Source text
Canada (Attorney General) v. Gagné Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2010-09-21 Neutral citation 2010 FCA 237 File numbers A-189-09, A-190-09, A-191-09, A-193-09, A-194-09, A-195-09 Decision Content Federal Court of Appeal Cour d’appel fédérale Date: 20100921 Dockets: A-193-09 A-189-09 A-190-09 A-191-09 A-194-09 A-195-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 237 CORAM: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Docket: A-193-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and PHILIPPE GAGNÉ Respondent Docket: A-189-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and STEEVE CASTONGUAY Respondent Docket: A-190-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and DAVID DROUIN Respondent Docket: A-191-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and SAMUEL GIRARD Respondent Docket: A-194-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and YAN TREMBLAY Respondent Docket: A-195-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and RICHARD GUILLEMETTE Respondent Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010. REASONS OF JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d’appel fédérale Date: 20100921 Dockets: A-193-09 A-189-09 A-190-09 A-191-09 A-194-09 A-195-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 237 CORAM: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Docket: A-193-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and PHILIPPE GAGNÉ Respondent Docket: A-189-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Gagné Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2010-09-21 Neutral citation 2010 FCA 237 File numbers A-189-09, A-190-09, A-191-09, A-193-09, A-194-09, A-195-09 Decision Content Federal Court of Appeal Cour d’appel fédérale Date: 20100921 Dockets: A-193-09 A-189-09 A-190-09 A-191-09 A-194-09 A-195-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 237 CORAM: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Docket: A-193-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and PHILIPPE GAGNÉ Respondent Docket: A-189-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and STEEVE CASTONGUAY Respondent Docket: A-190-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and DAVID DROUIN Respondent Docket: A-191-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and SAMUEL GIRARD Respondent Docket: A-194-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and YAN TREMBLAY Respondent Docket: A-195-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and RICHARD GUILLEMETTE Respondent Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010. REASONS OF JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d’appel fédérale Date: 20100921 Dockets: A-193-09 A-189-09 A-190-09 A-191-09 A-194-09 A-195-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 237 CORAM: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Docket: A-193-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and PHILIPPE GAGNÉ Respondent Docket: A-189-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and STEEVE CASTONGUAY Respondent Docket: A-190-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and DAVID DROUIN Respondent Docket: A-191-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and SAMUEL GIRARD Respondent Docket: A-194-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and YAN TREMBLAY Respondent Docket: A-195-09 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and RICHARD GUILLEMETTE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010) NOËL J.A. [1] In accordance with an order made by this Court on July 30, 2009, the reasons below in Philippe Gagné’s file (A‑193‑09) apply mutatis mutandis and dispose of the five other files. A copy will therefore be placed in each of the other files to stand as reasons in those cases. [2] The Board of Referees determined first that Philippe Gagné had not lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The Umpire refused to interfere in that decision for the following reason: . . . [T]he Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the claimants involved could not suspect that their behaviour would jeopardize their employment, given that this behaviour had long been tolerated, even by the supervisors, and that these actions had been committed in plain sight and with the knowledge of the supervisors without penalty, at least as far as the claimants knew. The Board could therefore conclude based on this evidence that the claimants’ actions did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act. (Reasons, page 5) [3] There is no error in that statement as regards the applicable principle in matters of misconduct. The only question which arises is whether the Umpire could make this finding based on the evidence, and it is this Court’s opinion that he could. [4] The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed with costs in file A‑193‑09 only. “Marc Noël” J.A. Certified true translation Tu-Quynh Trinh FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKETS: A-193-09, A-189-09, A-190-09, A-191-09, A-194-09 and A-195-09 STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney General of Canada v. Philippe Gagné, Steeve Castonguay, David Drouin, Samuel Girard, Yan Tremblay, Richard Guillemette PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: September 21, 2010 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NOËL J.A. APPEARANCES: Antoine Lippé FOR THE APPLICANT Jean Mailloux FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Pépin et Roy Québec, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80