[2013] 2 F.C.R. D-2
Employment Insurance
Judicial review of Umpire’s decision (CUB 78779) upholding Board of Referees’ decision that respondent qualifying for parental benefits under Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 23(1) with respect to grandchild—S. 23(1) providing for payment of benefits to claimant caring for one or more of claimant’s children or for children placed with claimant for purpose of adoption under laws governing adoption in province in which claimant residing—Umpire required to determine whether open to Board to conclude on evidence presented that respondent’s grandchild having been placed therewith “for purpose of adoption”— Whether Umpire correctly interpreting Act, s. 23(1); properly applying standard of reasonableness to Board’s findings of fact, application of law to facts—Respondent’s entitlement to benefits under s. 23(1) depending upon purpose for which grandchild placed therewith—On record before Board, question could only be answered on basis of respondent’s own evidence, which included letter from social worker employed by provincial child protection agency—Applicant’s argument that respondent’s claim could not succeed because at relevant time respondent only having temporary legal custody of grandchild rejected—Parliament having chosen broad, general terms to describe statutory purpose test in s . 23(1), must be taken to have recognized that placement of child for purpose of adoption may arise in variety of circumstances—While in some cases, provincial law or documentation relating to custody of particular child may provide conclusive answer to factual question asked by s. 23(1) as to purpose of child’s placement, in present case, applicant not providing any such documentation, only sparse references to applicable provincial law—No provincial law found contradicting Board’s conclusion—Record disclosing no basis upon which Umpire’s conclusion that Board’s decision reasonable can be set aside—Application dismissed—Per Nadon J.A. (dissenting): Since no evidence whatsoever supporting Board of Referees finding that respondent’s grandchild placed therewith for purpose of adoption, Umpire erring in failing to intervene—Umpire also erring in disregarding Parliament’s clear intention in enacting Act, s. 23(1), requirements thereof—Evidence revealing that child in respondent’s care on temporary basis, not permanent one—Board’s decision therefore unreasonable in fact, law.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Hunter (A-136-12, 2013 FCA 12, Sharlow J.A., judgment dated January 17, 2013, 18 pp.)