Anderson v. Attorney General of Canada and Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, (1983) 47 N.R. 229 (FCA)

• Judge: Heald, Urie and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 16, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 47 N.R. 229 (FCA)

Anderson v. Can. (A.G.) (1983), 47 N.R. 229 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Anderson v. Attorney General of Canada and Canada Employment and Immigration Commission

Indexed As: Anderson v. Attorney General of Canada and Canada Employment and Immigration Commission

Federal Court of Appeal

Heald, Urie and Le Dain, JJ.

March 16, 1983.

Summary:

A teacher was denied Unemployment Insurance benefits during summer vacation after illness forced her to stop work in March for the rest of the school year. A Board of Referees allowed her appeal. An Umpire allowed the Unemployment Insurance Commission's appeal. The teacher appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that the regulation under which her benefits were denied was ultra vires.

Statutes - Topic 5367

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Ultra vires - Whether purpose of regulation authorized by empowering statute - Section 46.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations denied Unemployment Insurance benefits to teachers during the annual summer vacation except in certain circumstances - Section 58(h)(i) of the Unemployment Insurance Act under which s. 46.1 was passed provided for "imposing additional conditions and terms" during customary annual periods of no work - The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 46.1 was ultra vires, because s. 58(h)(i) permitted additional conditions and terms, but not a prohibition of payment.

Cases Noticed:

Petts et al. v. The Umpire (1974), 6 N.R. 346; 53 D.L.R.(3d) 126, appld. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, sect. 58(h)(i) [para. 4].

Unemployment Insurance Regulations, sect. 46.1 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Maurice A. Green, for the appellant;

Lois Lehmann, for the respondents.

This case was heard on March 14, 1983, at Toronto, Ontario, before HEALD, URIE and LE DAIN, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On March 16, 1983, HEALD, J., delivered the following judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal: