Canada (Attorney General) v. Jewell, (1994) 175 N.R. 350 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 24, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 175 N.R. 350 (FCA)

Can. (A.G.) v. Jewell (1994), 175 N.R. 350 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Attorney General of Canada (applicant) v. Bruce Jewell (respondent)

(A-236-94)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Jewell

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.

October 24, 1994.

Summary:

Jewell's employment as a teacher in a college setting was terminated after he uttered a profanity to a student. Jewell claimed unemployment insurance benefits. The Un­employment Insurance Commission dis­qual­ified Jewell from securing benefits for eight weeks and reduced the rate of benefits (Un­­employment Insurance Act, s. 28(1)). Jewell appealed.

The Board of Referees dismissed the appeal. Jewell appealed again.

An Umpire allowed the appeal, holding that utterance of the profanity was not just cause for dismissal. The Attorney General of Canada applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application and set aside the umpire's deci­sion.

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 1705

Claims - Ground for refusal - Misconduct - A college teacher's employment was terminated after he uttered a profanity to a student - The Unemployment Insurance Commission decided that he was termi­nated for misconduct and disqualified him from securing unemployment insurance benefits for eight weeks and reduced the rate of benefits (Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 28(1)) - An umpire set aside the disqualification, holding that the utterance of the profanity was not just cause for dismissal - The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the umpire's ruling, because the umpire addressed the wrong question - The question was not whether the teacher's misconduct constituted "just cause" for dismissal, but whether the teacher lost his employment because of his own miscon­duct.

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Bedell (1985), 60 N.R. 116 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canada v. Tucker, [1986] 2 F.C. 329; 66 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canada (Procureur général) c. Brisette, [1994] 1 F.C. 684; 168 N.R. 60 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Namaro (1983), 46 N.R. 541 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1, sect. 28(1) [para. 2]; sect. 80 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Chris Parke, for the applicant;

Bruce Jewell, on his own behalf.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on October 24, 1994, before Stone, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered orally from the bench by Robertson, J.A., on the same date.