Federal Court Decision #A-636-85 - JOSEPH, MARIE-LUCIENNE v. COMMISSION, DUBINSKY, J., DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date:
March 11, 1986

Docket:
A-636-85

Umpire's Decision:
CUB 10783

"TRANSLATION"

CORAM :

PRATTE, J.
HUGESSEN, J.
LACOMBE, J.

BETWEEN :

MARIE-LUCIENNE JOSEPH,

applicant,

-and-

CANADA EMPLOYMENT AND
IMMIGRATION COMMISSION,

respondent,

-and-

DUBINSKY J, UMPIRE,

mis-en-cause,

-and-

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

mis-en-cause.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montreal
on Tuesday, March 11, 1986)

PRATTE, J:

The problem for solution is whether the umpire was right in saying that there was sufficient evidence before the board of referees to support the conclusion that the applicant lost his job as a result of his own misconduct.

To prove misconduct by an employee it must be shown that he behaved in some way other than he should have. Accordingly, such an allegation is not proven simply by showing that the employer found his employee's conduct to be reprehensible, or charged him with misconduct in general terms. For a board of referees to conclude that there was misconduct by an employee, it must have before it sufficiently detailed evidence for it to be able, first, to know how the employee behaved, and second, to decide whether such behavior was reprehensible.

In the case at bar, we are all of the view that the evidence that was before the board of referees does not meet these requirements.

For this reason the application will be allowed, the decision impugned will be set aside and the matter referred back to the umpire to be gain decided by him on the basis that, in law, the evidence before the board of referees was not sufficiently detailed to support a conclusion of misconduct.

"Louis Pratte"
J.F.C.C.