EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Granstrom
A-444-02
2003 FCA 485, Létourneau J.A.
18/12/03
7 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Umpire who was required to determine whether respondent had lost employment due to his misconduct within meaning of Employment Insurance Act (Act), s. 30--Whether Umpire erred in interpreting term "misconduct"--Applicant relying on Attorney General of Canada v. Brissette, A-1342-92 where Court ruled that commission of summary offence, resulting in conviction under Criminal Code, constituted misconduct within meaning of Act--Inability to fulfill condition of employment resulted from misconduct and entailed as consequence loss of employment--Thus loss of employment due to misconduct-- Here, consumption of alcohol, even if not in excessive quantity, may amount to misconduct depending on facts and circumstances--Conclusion of Umpire dismissing appeal resulted from total lack of evidence as to cause and legality of suspension of claimant's driving licence--Although fact of suspension proven, record did not show even prima facie evidence as to legal requirements driver's licence suspended --No error by Umpire on this conclusion--Whether Umpire erred in law by concluding conviction required in order to find misconduct--Umpire did not restrict analysis of what constitutes misconduct to charge laid and lack of recorded conviction thereof--On contrary, Umpire showed willingness "to examine the reason for the suspension for the purpose of determining whether claimant committed an act which may be considered misconduct"--However, no provisions of provincial statutes filed which would have enabled him to perform such function--Judicial review dismissed-- Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 30.