Tembec Industries Inc. v. Sokoloski

Tembec Industries Inc. v. Sokoloski
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2012-05-29
Neutral citation
2012 FCA 157
File numbers
A-145-11
Decision Content
Date: 20120529
Docket: A-145-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 157
CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
TEMBEC INDUSTRIES INC.
Applicant
and
WILLIAM SOKOLOSKI,
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 14, 2012.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 29, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DAWSON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
DISSENTING REASONS BY: STRATAS J.A.
Date: 20120529
Docket: A-145-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 157
CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
TEMBEC INDUSTRIES INC.
Applicant
and
WILLIAM SOKOLOSKI,
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Umpire (CUB 74658A) rendered under the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (Act). In the decision under review, the Umpire reconsidered and rescinded his earlier decision in CUB 74658, where he had upheld a decision of the Board of Referees which found that Mr. Sokoloski was not entitled to benefits during the period of an alleged labour dispute.
[2] On this application for judicial review Tembec Industries Inc., Mr. Sokoloski’s employer at the time, argues that the Umpire’s decision should be set aside because Tembec neither received notice of Mr. Sokoloski’s appeal to the Umpire nor notice of his request for reconsideration.
[3] This matter is substantially similar to the application for judicial review filed in A-101-11 involving Tembec and five of its former employees. That application for judicial review was allowed for the reasons given in 2012 FCA 156.
[4] For the same reasons, I would allow this application for judicial review, with costs (to be calculated in accordance with Rule 407) payable to Tembec by Mr. Sokoloski.
“Eleanor R. Dawson”
J.A.
“I agree.
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
STRATAS J.A. (Dissenting reasons)
[5] For substantially the same reasons I gave in Tembec Industries Inc. v. Berthelette et al (A-101-11), I would dismiss the application for judicial review, with costs.
“David Stratas”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-145-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: Tembec Industries Inc. v.
William Sokoloski et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: March 14, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Dawson J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Pelletier J.A.
DISSENTING REASONS BY: Stratas J.A.
DATED: May 29, 2012
APPEARANCES:
David A. Simpson
FOR THE APPLICANT
Margaret McCabe
Mary Softley
Paula Turtle
FOR THE RESPONDENT / ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
FOR THE RESPONDENTS / WILLIAM SOKOLOSKI et al.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Fillmore Riley LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Winnipeg, Manitoba
FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
United Steelworkers
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT / ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
FOR THE RESPONDENTS / LEONARD BERTHELETTE et al.