Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Michael
A-1692-92
Létourneau J.A.
23-3-94
6 pp.
Application for judicial review of Umpire's decision allowing in part respondent's appeal from board of referees' decision dismissing appeal from decision of Commission in which respondent, who had twice refused offer of suitable employment, was held both to be disentitled to benefit and subject to two penalties disqualifying him from said benefit-Umpire had concluded disqualification from benefit pursuant to Unemployment Insurance Act s. 27 could not coexist with finding of disentitlement for such benefit under s. 14 when based on same ground, respondent's refusal to accept two offers of suitable employment-Respondent dismissed for lack of work-Claimed benefit, indicating seeking employment-After two refusals of offers of employment Commission ruled not entitled to benefit and imposed two disqualification penalties-Disentitlement and disqualification independent from each other and cumulative: Rondeau v. Simard, [1977] 1 F.C. 519 (C.A.)-Disqualification temporary removal from beneficiary category and disentitlement failure to enter category due to lack of qualification or availability-Frivolous double refusal justified disqualification and may reasonably indicate claimant not available during period of working days concerned, justifying conclusion not entitled-Appears from Act, ss. 14, 27, 40 disentitlement system and disqualification system separate and complementary and not mutually exclusive-Umpire made error of law requiring intervention of this Court-Application allowed-Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, ss. 14, 27, 40.