A-563-76
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
The Umpire Constituted under section 92 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-
71-72, c. 48 (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Urie and Ryan JJ.—
Halifax, April 27, 1977.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Claim for
insurance because of lack of work due to labour dispute —
Interpretation of s. 44(1),(2) of Unemployment Insurance Act,
1971 — Conditions of s. 44(2) must be met — Decision of
Umpire overturned — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd
Supp.), c. 10, s. 28 — Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971,
S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, s. 44(1),(2).
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
M. G. Tompkins for applicant.
David R. Hubley for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Patterson, Smith, Matthews & Grant, Truro,
N.S., for respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: This is an application under section
28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set
aside a decision of an Umpire under Part V of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971'. By that
decision the Umpire allowed an appeal from a
decision made by the Board of Referees that Mr.
John G. MacWha had, within the meaning of
section 44(1) of the Act, 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" and was not
entitled to receive the benefits he had claimed
since he had not proved the facts described in
section 44(2).
' S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48.
As we read his decision, the Umpire found that
Mr. MacWha had not participated in the labour
dispute that caused the stoppage of work and,
from that finding alone, he inferred that Mr.
MacWha was entitled to receive the benefits. That
decision, in our view, is wrong. In order to be
entitled to receive the benefits, it was necessary for
the claimant to prove not only that he had not
participated in the labour dispute that had caused
the stoppage of work, but also that he met the
other conditions enumerated in section 44(2).
For those reasons, the section 28 application will
be allowed, the decision of the Umpire will be set
aside and the matter will be referred back for
decision on the basis that an applicant who falls
within section 44(1) of the Unemployment Insur
ance Act, 1971 must, in order to be entitled to
receive benefits, prove that he meets all the condi
tions enumerated in section 44(2).
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.