A-116-79
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Yvette Lévesque (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Heald JJ. and
Lalande D.J.—Montreal, March 23, 1981.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Application
to review and set aside Umpire's decision to allow respondent's
initial claim for benefits — Prior to December 4, 1977, a
claimant was entitled pursuant to s. 17 of the Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1971, to establish a benefit period after eight
weeks of insurable employment — On December 4, 1977, s. 17
was amended to provide for ten weeks of insurable employ
ment — Respondent filed her claim on December 5, 1977, her
last day of employment having been December 2, 1977 —
Whether respondent had a vested right, prior to December 4,
1977, to establish a benefit period — Unemployment Insurance
Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, as amended, ss. 17, 18(1),
20 — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
J.-M. Aubry for applicant.
Y. Lévesque for herself.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Y. Lévesque for herself.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: This section 28 application is against
a decision of an Umpire pursuant to Part V of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-
71-72, c. 48.
Respondent lost her employment after working
for eight weeks, from October 6 to Friday, Decem-
ber 2, 1977. On the latter date section 17 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 required that,
for a claimant to be entitled to establish a benefit
period, he must have held insurable employment
for eight weeks or more during his qualifying
period. On December 4, 1977 section 17 was
amended. As of that date a claimant had to have
ten weeks of insurable employment in his qualify
ing period in order to be entitled to establish a
benefit period.
On December 5, the day following the effective
date of this amendment, respondent filed an initial
claim for benefits. The Commission dismissed this
claim on the ground that respondent had not held
insurable employment for ten weeks, as required
by the new section 17. Respondent appealed from
this decision to a Board of Referees. The Board
allowed the appeal, on the ground that the new
legislation could not deprive respondent of a vested
right. It is this decision, affirmed by the decision of
the Umpire, which is the subject of this appeal.
We are all of the view that the decision of the
Umpire should be quashed. He assumed that,
before the new section 17 became effective, on
December 4, respondent was entitled to establish a
benefit period. We feel this is incorrect.
It is only necessary to read sections 17(2), 18(1)
and 20 of the Act to see that, if respondent had
filed a claim for benefits before December 4, that
claim would have been dismissed because respond
ent did not at that time have eight weeks of
insurable employment in her qualifying period,
since in that case the qualifying period would have
ended on Sunday, November 27, when respondent
had only worked for seven weeks. Respondent
would only have eight weeks of employment in her
qualifying period if she filed her claim for benefits
after December 4: but on December 4 the Act had
been amended and henceforth required ten weeks
of employment.
For these reasons, the decision a quo will be
quashed and the matter referred back to the
Umpire to be decided by him on the assumption
that respondent did not, before December 4, 1977,
have a vested right to establish a benefit period.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.