TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
Luce FORTIN
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on February 27, 2004 at Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec.
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant filed a benefit claim on October 31, 2003, and a benefit period effective November 2, 2003 was established. The claimant applied for compassionate care benefits as of January 15, 2004 to take care of her sister, who was terminally ill in the United States. The Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled to compassionate care benefits because the definition of "family member" in section 23.1(1) of the Employment Insurance Act does not include sisters.
The claimant appealed from the Commission's decision to the Board of Referees, which allowed the appeal. The Commission appealed from the Board's decision to the Umpire. This appeal was heard on October 12, 2004 in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec. Although she was sent a notice of hearing, the claimant did not appear. She did not contact the Office of the Umpire or the Commission. The hearing proceeded in absentia.
The facts in the docket are uncontested. The claimant applied for compassionate care benefits to take care of her sister, who was ill.
The Board based its decision on an application of the definition of "family members" in section 55(2) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, which provides for exceptions to a disentitlement under section 33 of the Act for a period of absence from Canada during a benefit period.
On appeal, the Commission submitted that the Board could not ignore the definition of "family members" in section 23.1(1) of the Act, since this definition specifically concerns individuals who are entitled to compassionate care benefits.
Although I sympathize greatly with the claimant, the case law holds that the Commission, Boards of Referees and Umpires are bound by the wording of the Act. In Currie (CUB 11077), Strayer J. wrote:
It is apparent from the material filed by the claimant and the submissions made by him to me that he regards the Act and the Regulations as unjust and that is why he considers that he has been denied "natural justice". It must be emphasized that the Umpire can only grant relief where some error such as a procedural deficiency can be found in the decision of the Board of Referees. The Umpire cannot correct what are regarded by some as weaknesses or errors or injustices in the legislation adopted by Parliament or the Regulations adopted by the Governor in Council.
Parliament could have provided a broader definition as to what constitutes a family member for the purpose of obtaining compassionate care benefits, but it did not do so. The Board could not change a very clear legislative provision, even for the best of reasons.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Board of Referees' decision is rescinded and the Commission's initial decision confirmed.
GUY GOULARD
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 22, 2004