Canada (Procureur général) v. Dupéré, (2001) 273 N.R. 145 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Létourneau and Noël, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 273 N.R. 145 (FCA);2001 FCA 83

Can. (P.g.) v. Dupéré (2001), 273 N.R. 145 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. AP.041

La Procureure générale du Canada (demanderesse) v. Maryse Dupéré (défenderesse)

(A-774-99; 2001 FCA 83)

Indexed As: Canada (Procureur général) v. Dupéré

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Létourneau and Noël, JJ.A.

March 22, 2001.

Summary:

An employee applied for maternity bene­fits. The Commission determined her benefit rate. The employee appealed the benefit rate. A board of referees allowed the appeal. An umpire upheld the board's decision. The Crown applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application, quashed the umpire's decision and remitted the matter to the chief umpire or his representative.

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 1664

Claims - Application for benefits - Bene­fit rate - An employee held two part-time jobs concurrently with two separate employers -Due to her pregnancy she exercised a precautionary cessation of work at the first job from March 7 to September 16, 1997 - She received prov­incial benefits until September 17 when she took maternity leave - The employee continued to work at her other job, but at a reduced work as­signment - There was no evidence that her pay was reduced - On September 14, 1997 she took maternity leave from the second job - She sought maternity benefits - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the benefit rate should be determined on the basis that September 3 was the end of the rate calculation period being the week in which the last interrup­tion of earnings occurred (Employment Insurance Act, s. 14(4)) - The court rejected that the first interruption in March should have been used - Section 14(7) of the Employment Insurance Regulations did not apply because the employee did not cease her second job and receive a wage supplement or undertake less remunerative work.

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Cymerman, [1996] 2 F.C. 593; 195 N.R. 361 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, sect. 14(4) [para. 4].

Employment Insurance Act Regulations (Can.), Employment Insurance Regula­tions, SOR/96-332, sect. 14(7) [para. 5].

Counsel:

Carole Bureau, for the plaintiff;

Jean-Guy Ouellet, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Ouellet, Nadon & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This application was heard on March 20, 2001, at Montréal, Quebec, before Décary, Létourneau and Noël, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Létourneau, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court on March 22, 2001.