Canada (Attorney General) v. Wang, 2008 FCA 112

• Judge: Sexton, Sharlow and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2008 FCA 112;(2008), 377 N.R. 237 (FCA)

Can. (A.G.) v. Wang (2008), 377 N.R. 237 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. JN.026

Attorney General of Canada (applicant) v. Aihua Wang (respondent)

(A-356-07; 2008 FCA 112)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Wang

Federal Court of Appeal

Sexton, Sharlow and Pelletier, JJ.A.

March 31, 2008.

Summary:

A board of referees concluded that Wang was available for work and was entitled to benefits under the Employment Insurance Act. An umpire dismissed an appeal. The Attorney General applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 1704

Claims - Grounds for refusal - Not available for work - In March 2005, Wang applied for admission to a university course which was to commence in September 2005 - Her contract of employment expired in July 2005 - Wang filed a claim for employment insurance - A board of referees allowed the claim - An umpire dismissed an appeal - The Attorney General applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal referred to the following criteria for entitlement to benefits in these circumstances: "1. a wish to return to the labour market as soon as suitable employment is offered; 2. an indication of this wish by efforts to find such suitable employment; and 3. absence of personal conditions that unduly limit chances of returning to the labour market." - The evidence was that Wang repeatedly stated that her first intention was to find and accept suitable full-time employment - She presented evidence of numerous efforts to find employment - She also indicated that she was willing to relocate to accept such employment - The case rested on Wang's credibility - The board obviously found her to be credible - Thus the presumption of non-availability for work was successfully rebutted - The umpire did not err on the evidence or in his interpretation of the applicable jurisprudence.

Cases Noticed:

Faucher v. Commission de l'emploi et de l'immigration du Canada (1997), 215 N.R. 314 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

Charmaine de Los Reyes, for the applicant;

Aihua Wang, on her own behalf.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant.

This application was heard at Toronto Ontario on March 31, 2008, by Sexton, Sharlow and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Sexton, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment orally for the court on the same date.