TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefit by
Christian CORRIVEAU
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to the Umpire by the Commission
from the decision of a Board of Referees given at
Lévis, Quebec, on March 28, 1995.
DECISION
JOYAL, J.
On December 28, 1994, the claimant lost his employment, as a result of the loss of his driver's licence over $300 of unpaid fines.
On February 8, 1995, the Employment and Immigration Commission denied the claimant's claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct.
On March 22, 1995, the Board of Referees allowed the claimant's appeal. The Board found that the claimant had been guilty of the violation of failing to wear a seat belt; that he worked for minimum wage; that he was having difficulty paying his fines; and that because he had made best efforts to pay his fines, the municipality gave him back his licence, but subsequently suspended it for a period of three months because he was 24 hours late with regard to payment. These facts led the Board to conclude that in such circumstances, the claimant had not engaged in misconduct.
At first blush, based on the principle enunciated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Brissette, [1994] 1 F.C. 684, I might have allowed the Commission's appeal, albeit reluctantly. However, one must read the reasons of the Board of Referees very carefully if one wishes to understand its reasoning. In my opinion, the Board acknowledged that the suspension of claimant's licence was an administrative sanction, not a criminal one, and that it was not based on a moving violation or Highway Code offence, or attributable to any improper or reprehensible conduct on the part of the claimant.
I believe that the Board's decision was entirely proper and in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Act. The penalty provided by law for all claimants who have engaged in misconduct provides no room for discretion, flexibility, or the consideration of mitigating circumstances. It's all or nothing. It is a total disqualification for an entire benefit period, which in our day and age can become increasingly lengthy. Some may believe that this is not the type of penalty one would expect to encounter in a legal and statutory framework that is said to be so compensatory. A system that permits the exercise of good judgment is better than one based on harsh and inflexible rules.
In my humble opinion, the gravity of the punishment must, where possible, be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. A delinquent debtor is not a criminal. Delay in the payment of a debt does not constitute misconduct in and of itself. The principle set forth in the case law already applies to misconduct that is in no way directly related to the employment of the claimant, as it does to misconduct that does not arise during the claimant's hours of work. It seems to me that this principle should only apply to a reprehensible act or reprehensible conduct.
The appeal of the Commission is dismissed.
L.-Marcel Joyal
Umpire
OTTAWA (Ontario)
August 30, 1996.