Canada ( Attorney General ) v. McKenzie
A-1460-92
Desjardins J.A.
2/6/93
8 pp.
Respondent, employed by Algoma since 1978, retained by Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology to teach training program for Algoma employees and post-secondary class in electrical machinery from January 2 to June 22 1990 -- On leave of absence from Algoma -- College paying salary while teaching -- Algoma maintaining benefits for which reimbursed by College -- Kept union membership -- In June notified appointed to College staff for fall session -- Formal contract signed -- Resumed duties at Algoma from July 2 to July 22 when went on holidays -- Lock-out or strike commencing at Algoma July 31 -- On August 8 respondent notified sessional teaching position not required due to labour dispute, but required to attend teaching session week of August 20 -- On December 22 offered winter sessional employee position -- Upon application for unemployment insurance benefits advised not entitled to benefits from August 13 until termination of work stoppage under Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 31(1) -- S. 31(1) providing claimant losing employment as result of work stoppage attributable to labour dispute not entitled to receive benefit -- Entitled to benefit under s. 31(1)(c) when regularly engaged in some other occupation -- Umpire holding respondent "regularly engaged in some other occupation" due to contract with College -- Application for judicial review dismissed -- "Regularly" implying "continuity" and to be contrasted with "casual and intermittent" according to Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2 -- Duration not feature of s. 31(1)(c) -- Fixed pattern rather than fixed period of employment required -- Despite cancellation of contract for fall session, element of "continuity" in offer to attend paid teacher training session -- Continuity also in sense respondent for that five days worked on regular schedule -- Not "token" or "sham" employment -- Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, s. 31.