A-445-76
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Michel Papillon (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Le Dain J. and
Hyde D.J.—Montreal, November 12, 1976.
Judicial review—Unemployment insurance Cessation of
work due to disagreement between employees' and employers'
associations as to amendment to be made to law governing
labour relations in construction industry—Whether conflict
between employees and employers or between employees and
Government of Quebec—Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C.
1970-71-72, c. 48, s. 44—Federal Court Act, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
J. M. Aubry for applicant.
No one appearing on behalf of respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Michel Papillon on his own behalf.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
LE DAIN J.: This is an application, brought
under section 28, for the review and setting aside
of the decision of an umpire, rendered under the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971'.
The point at issue is whether respondent was not
entitled to benefit from the provisions of section 44
of the Act, which reads as follows:
44. (1) A claimant who has lost his employment by reason
of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute at the
factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed
is not entitled to receive benefit until
(a) the termination of the stoppage of work,
(b) he becomes bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupa
tion that he usually follows, or
' S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48.
(c) he has become regularly engaged in some other
occupation,
whichever event first occurs.
(2) Subsection (1) is not applicable if a claimant proves that
(a) he is not participating in or financing or directly interest
ed in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work;
and
(b) he does not belong to a grade or class of°workers that,
immediately before the commencement of the stoppage,
included members who were employed at the premises at
which the stoppage is taking place and are participating in,
financing or directly interested in the dispute.
(3) Where separate branches of work that are commonly
carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are
carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each
department shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to
be a separate factory or workshop.
(4) In this Act, "labour dispute" means 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.
The record in this case shows that there was a
dispute between the Quebec Federation of Labour
and employers' organizations over amendments to
be made to a decree adopted under the Construc
tion Industry Labour Relations Act. The Federa
tion sought to compel the employers to agree to
these amendments, as under section 18 of the said
Act the government was not able to act without
the agreement of the employers. This dispute
resulted in a stoppage of work.
In their representations on the facts, the Com
mission and the claimant adopted essentially the
same view of the nature of the dispute. In spite of
these facts the umpire, without making reference
to other facts which could cast doubt on this view,
concluded that "the dispute was not between
employer and employees nor between employees
and employees, but between the Government of
the Province of Quebec on the one hand and ...
the Quebec Federation of Labour". We are of the
opinion that he erred in law when he reached this
conclusion on the basis of the facts as established
in the record. His decision must consequently be
set aside and the record returned for respondent's
appeal to be re-heard on the basis that the stop
page of work was the result of a labour dispute,
within the meaning of section 44 of the Act.
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.