CUB 26597 / 26596
JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date:
February 21, 1996
Docket:
A-94-95 / A-96-95
Umpire's Decision:
CUB 26597 / 26596
"TRANSLATION"
CORAM :
PRATTE
MARCEAU
DECARY, JJ.AA.
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
LANGLOIS Michel,
respondent.
Docket: A-96-95 (CUB 26596)
BETWEEN :
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
applicant,
-and-
EDWARD Robert,
respondent.
Hearing held at Quebec, Quebec, on Wednesday February 21, 1996.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Pronounced at the hearing in Québec, Quebec
Wednesday, February 21, 1996)
PRATTE J.A.:
The umpire had to determine whether the board of referees had committed an error of the kind referred to in section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1 in allowing the respondents' appeals from the rulings of the Commission, which had excluded them from benefits on the ground that they had lost their employment because of their misconduct.
The board of referees, as we read its decision, acknowledged that the respondents' conduct had been reprehensible and deserved to be punished; but it nevertheless concluded that, in the circumstances, the respondents' misconduct was not so serious as to constitute misconduct within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In so ruling, the board did not err in law, in our opinion.
The misconduct referred to in section 28(1), and which, like voluntarily leaving one's employment, may entail the disqualification from benefits of the claimant throughout his benefit period, pursuant to section 30.1, is not a mere breach by the employee of any duty related to his employment; it is a breach of such scope that its author could normally foresee that it would be likely to result in his dismissal.
While, therefore, as the cases hold, the board could not ask itself whether the dismissal of the respondents was justified, it should nevertheless have asked itself, as it did, whether the misconduct the respondents had engaged in was sufficiently serious as to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
And, since the board's conclusion on this latter point was not unreasonable, although it might appear debatable, the umpire was not in error in refusing to intervene.
The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.
"Louis Pratte"
J.A.