The legislative provisions with respect to labour disputes are based on two assumptions. First, the government should take a neutral stance in a labour dispute and not support one side (the employees) by providing benefits during a labour dispute. Second, an employer should not have its contributions to the unemployment or employment insurance system used to support employees who are in a labour dispute with an employer.
Valois v. Canada (A.G.), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 439 (S.C.C.) File No. 17814 A-879-82
Letourneau v. C.E.I.C., [1986] 2 F.C. 82 (F.C.A.) A-1082-84
Hills v. Canada (A.G.), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513 (S.C.C.)File no. 19094 A-175-84
White et al. v. The Queen, [1994] 2 F.C. 233 (F.C.A.) A-1036-92
The Federal Court of Appeal has stated that the disentitlement imposed under these provisions is "neither fundamentally unjust nor unreasonable; on the contrary, it is necessary in order to insure that the Unemployment Insurance Commission will not take sides in labour complaints and that the funds of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will not be used to lend support to employees in a labour dispute with their employer."
Zwarich v. Canada (A.G.), [1987] 3 F.C. 253 (F.C.A.) A-521-86
Robinson v. Canada (A.G.), [1987] F.C.J. No. 539 (F.C.A.) A-589-86
Meredith v. C.E.I.C., December 11, 1989, F.C.J. No. 1117 (F.C.A.) A-226-88
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2010-06-18