(Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia,
on January 13, 2003.
JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date:
20030113
Docket:
A-12-02
Neutral citation:
2003 FCA 15
Umpire's Decision:
CUB 50119
CORAM:
STRAYER J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH AGYEMAN,
applicant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
respondent.
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 13, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia,
on January 13, 2003.
SEXTON J. A.:
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act whereby the Umpire dismissed the Applicant's appeal from the decision of the Board of Referees which had upheld the conclusion of the Commission to the effect that the Applicant had not demonstrated just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment.
[2] The Applicant worked part-time for a hospital as a nurse's aid in Montreal. He asked for a one-month leave of absence to seek better employment in Vancouver because he said he felt job prospects in Montreal were not promising, having regard to the fact that a number of hospitals in Montreal had closed.
[3] His subsequent request for an extension of this leave of absence was refused and he then voluntarily gave up his job. After the Applicant applied for Employment Insurance benefits, the Commission was informed by the Applicant's former employer that he had had a secure job and he voluntarily chose to quit that job. This was essentially confirmed by the Applicant.
[4] The Applicant made a request for reconsideration under section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act to adduce new evidence consisting of newspaper clippings referring to problems of staff cuts in the hospital in Quebec at the relevant time. The Umpire found, correctly in our view, that there were no new facts as contemplated by section 120 that would justify reopening the matter.
[5] On the application for judicial review, the Applicant seeks to rely on that same evidence plus an additional letter from a union official. The Respondent objects to this same evidence on the basis that it cannot be filed on an application for judicial review. It is not necessary for us to decide this question because the Applicant has, in any event, failed to show that the evidence could not with due diligence have been filed before the Commission or that the evidence would have been persuasive on the issue of his voluntary leaving.
[6] The issue in this case is essentially a factual one relating to whether the Applicant voluntarily left his job without just cause. This issue has been determined adversely to the Applicant before all of the Tribunals below. We can see no error in the determination by the Umpire on this issue.
[7] The Applicant raised a new issue at the hearing of this appeal stating that he had received no Employment Insurance benefits during the period between December 1995 and June 1996 and therefore he should not be asked to repay anything related to that period. This matter was not raised prior to the hearing of this application for judicial review nor does the Record shed any light on this issue. It is now too late for this issue to be raised.
[8] This application should be dismissed.
(Sgd.) "J. Edgar Sexton "
J.A.
2011-01-10