Federal Court Decision #A-75-94 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. ALAN, CRAIG

JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date:
January 31, 1995

Docket:
A-75-94

Umpire's Decision:
CUB 23928

CORAM:

PRATTE J.A.
DÉCARY, J.A.
ROBERTSON J.A.

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

applicant,

- and -

ALAN CRAIG,

respondent.

Heard at Ottawa (Ontario), on Tuesday, January 31, 1995.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Judgement rendered from the Bench on January 31, 1995)

DÉCARY, J.A.:

This case is undistinguishable from that of Attorney General of Canada v. MacMillan (30 January 1989), A-714-88 (F.C.A.) [unreported] (application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed (1989), 101 N.R. 158). For there to be a loan, there must be both an obligation to repay and documentary evidence which indicates a loan exists and which sets out its terms. In the case at bar, the Umpire erred in holding that the Board of Referees was bound to accept the respondent's submissions, made without any supporting evidence, that a part of the total weekly payments received by the respondent from his former employer constituted a loan and not regular pension payments.

This application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Umpire will be set aside and the matter will be sent back to the chief umpire or to the umpire designated by him for determination on the basis that the Board of Referees did not commit any reviewable error in deciding that all monies received by the respondent under the employer's retirement plan are pension monies within the meaning of Sections 57 and 58 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations.

"Robert Décary"

J.A.