A disentitlement to benefits may only be imposed if the following conditions exist:
Hurren v. Canada (A.G.) [1986], F.C.J. No. 379 (F.C.A.) A-942-85
Morrison v. C.E.I.C. [1990], F.C.J. No. 400 (F.C.A.) A-209-89
British Columbia Maritime Employers Association v. Wellicome et al., December 11, 1997, F.C.J. No. 1718 (F.C.A.) A-690-96
In order for a disentitlement to be imposed there must be a chain of causation between these events. The labour dispute must cause the work stoppage which in turn must cause the claimant's loss of employment.
Caron v. C.E.I.C., [1989] 1 F.C. 628 (F.C.A.) A-1063-87; affirmed [1991] 1 S.C.R. 48 (S.C.C.) File no. 21188
White et al. v. The Queen, [1994] 2 F.C. 233 (F.C.A.) A-1036-92
Whether a claimant has lost his or her employment by reason of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute or some other cause is a question of fact for the Board of Referees.
Morrison v. C.E.I.C. [1990], F.C.J. No. 400 (F.C.A.) A-209-89
A claimant may be disentitled to benefits under these sections regardless of the type of employment he or she holds and even if the employment is precarious and irregular in nature. Furthermore, the disentitlement applies to claimants who lose either full-time or part-time employment.
Simard v. C.E.I.C., September 23, 1985 (F.C.A.) A-1415-84
Canada (A.G.) v. Bouillon, May 27, 1996, F.C.J. No. 752 (F.C.A.) A-351-95, A-352-95
Also see below "Loss of Part-time Employment"
In order to be disentitled under these provisions, a claimant must lose employment. A claimant cannot lose what he or she does not have. Therefore, a claimant who is unemployed and who misses a chance or an opportunity to be employed, does not lose his or her employment within the meaning of the legislation and is not subject to a disentitlement. A claimant who has been laid off of work before the commencement of the strike and who has no scheduled recall date is not subject to a disentitlement. The mere expectation of recall is not enough. However, the disentitlement will apply to a claimant who is on lay-off at the time the labour dispute commences and who has a scheduled recall date but who does not commence work on that date because of the dispute.
Cloutier v. U.I.C., June 11, 1982 (F.C.A.) A-549-81
Gionest v. U.I.C., [1983] 1 F.C. 832 (F.C.A.) A-787-81
Canada (A.G.) v. McKellar, May 31, 1983 (F.C.A.) A-833-82
Canada (A.G.) v. Carpentier, January 12, 1983 (F.C.A.) A-801-82
Goulet v. C.E.I.C., [1984] 1 F.C. 653 (F.C.A.) A-358-83
Morrison v. C.E.I.C. [1990], F.C.J. No. 400 (F.C.A.) A-209-89
Morissette v. C.E.I.C., March 21, 1991, F.C.J. No. 247 (F.C.A.) A-692-90
White et al. v. The Queen, [1994] 2 F.C. 233 (F.C.A.) A-1036-92; A-1037-92; A-1039-92
The question which must be asked is how did the claimant lose his or her employment at the start of his or her period of unemployment and not "why is the claimant unemployed now?" It is the cause of the claimant's loss of employment at the time he or she became unemployed which makes him or her ineligible for benefits. Once ineligibility is established, it does not end until one of the situations listed in the Act occurs. Therefore, once a claimant has lost employment by reason of a labour dispute, the disentitlement remains in force even if the labour dispute "ceases to be the real cause of the unemployment."
Imbeault v. U.I.C. [1984], F.C.J. No. 311 (F.C.A.) A-181-83
In order for a disentitlement to be imposed, the loss of employment must have been caused by the work stoppage itself. It is not sufficient to find that a claimant has lost his or her employment by reason of a labour dispute alone. Therefore, a claimant who quits his or her job because a strike is imminent, does not lose his or her employment by reason of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute and is not subject to a disentitlement under these provisions. In the same manner, a claimant whose job terminates or who is laid off before the start of a labour dispute will not be disentitled
Letourneau v. C.E.I.C., [1986] 2 F.C. 82 (F.C.A.) A-1082-84
White et al. v. The Queen, [1994] 2 F.C. 233 (F.C.A.) A-1036-92; A-1037-92; A-1039-92
In order for a disentitlement to be imposed, the work stoppage must be attributable to a labour dispute. The term "labour dispute" is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act as "any dispute between employers and employees, or between employees and employees, that is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of employment, of any persons."
Subsection 2(1) Employment Insurance Act
The term "dispute" has been defined by the Courts as meaning a disagreement or dissension. Accordingly, when employees and the employer are negotiating a collective agreement, there is a labour dispute.
Gionest v. U.I.C., [1983] 1 F.C. 832 (F.C.A.) A-787-81
The term "labour dispute" is not restricted to a dispute involving unionized employees. Furthermore, it is not limited to a strike, since the dispute may be initiated by the employer by way of a lockout.
Canada (A.G.) v. Guillemette, May 27, 1980, F.C.J. No. 1109 (F.C.A.) A-568-79
Meredith v. C.E.I.C., December 11, 1989, F.C.J. No. 1117 (F.C.A.) A-226-88
In order for a disentitlement to be imposed, there must be a causal connection between a labour dispute and a work stoppage. Whether that causal connection exists is a question of law.
J.D. Laval Dallaire et al. v. C.E.I.C., September 18, 1996 (F.C.A.) A-825-95; leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada denied File No. 25667
Canada (A.G.) v. Simoneau, May 2, 1997, F.C.J. No. 550 (F.C.A.) A-611-96
Whether a work stoppage is attributable to a labour dispute as defined in the Employment Insurance Act is a question of mixed fact and law. An Umpire's decision in this regard will only be set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal if it was unreasonable based upon the evidence.
Canada (A.G.) v. Stillo, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1323 (F.C.A.) A-651-01
Canada (A.G.) v. Benedetti, 2009 FCA 283 (F.C.A.) A-32-09
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2010-05-31