TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
Robert DUCHAINE
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the employer
SENTIER URBAIN
from the decision of a Board of Referees given on May 29, 2003 in Montreal, Quebec.
DECISION
André Quesnel, Umpire
The Commission refused to pay the benefits claimed because the claimant had lost his employment owing to his misconduct.
The Board of Referees reversed this decision, which led to this appeal by the employer.
The claimant had been working for Sentier Urbain as an environmental facilitator from July 27, 2002 to March 11, 2003 when he was dismissed.
His employer accused him of not working full weeks, cheating on his hours, having problems in working under supervision and destroying documents.
However, in the letter of dismissal, his employer accuses him of circulating correspondence without first submitting it for approval and later destroying it, cancelling all the workshops planned for the week of March 10 without authorization and having problems in working under supervision.
A analysis of these facts, in addition to those arising from the testimony given before the Board of Referees, led the Board to conclude that the Commission had not demonstrated the claimant's misconduct.
The Board of Referees noted that there was a personality conflict between the employer and the claimant since they have different ways of working; according to the Board, such a situation did not constitute misconduct on the part of the claimant.
The main role of a Board of Referees consists in assessing evidence. The Federal Court of Appeal 1 has often ruled in this regard, more particularly by writing the following:
In any event, it is the Board of Referees--the pivot of the entire system put in place by the Act for the purpose of verifying and interpreting the facts--that must make this assessment. In this case the Board of Referees, on the basis of the facts it had found and the testimony it had heard, refused to concede that the applicant's breaches, even when considered in conjunction, could constitute misconduct within the meaning of section 28 of the Act, even though the employer may have thought these were sufficient to merit dismissal. The umpire, in our opinion, could not dismiss this finding by the Board solely on the basis of reasonaing that, when all is said and done, simply gives unfettered priority to the views of the employer.
The same Court 2 had even specified, in the following terms, that it was not of the Umpire's purview to substitute his opinion for that of a Board of Referees in such a matter:
It is evident from the board's decision that both the majority and minority view had been canvassed. Although the majority could have ruled otherwise, they chose to disbelieve the respondent with regard to health as being the cause for leaving his employment. The umpire could not substitute her opinion for that of the majority. The board members were in the best position and had the best opportunity to assess the evidence and make findings with regard to credibility.
The Board of Referees' assessment of the evidence does not seem to be erroneous to the point that I must intervene to substitute my opinion.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
André Quesnel
UMPIRE
Montreal, Quebec
March 2, 2004