CUB 72004 / 72003 / 72062 / 72064 / 72005 / 72002
JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date:
20100921
Docket:
A-193-09 / A-189-09 / A-190-09 / A-191-09 / A-194-09 / A-195-09
Citation:
2010 FCA 237
Umpire's Decision:
CUB 72004 / 72003 / 72062 / 72064 / 72005 / 72002
"TRANSLATION"
CORAM :
NOËL
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
Docket: A-193-09 (CUB 72004)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
PHILIPPE GAGNÉ,
respondent.
Docket: A-189-09 (CUB 72003)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
STEEVE CASTONGUAY,
respondent.
Docket: A-190-09 (CUB 72062)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
DAVID DROUIN,
respondent.
Docket: A-191-09 (CUB 72064)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
SAMUEL GIRARD,
respondent.
Docket: A-194-09 (CUB 72005)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
YAN TREMBLAY,
respondent.
Docket: A-195-09 (CUB 72002)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
RICHARD GUILLEMETTE,
respondent.
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on September 21, 2010.
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.