A-900-77
Denise Bureau (Applicant)
v.
J. Hector Archambault (Respondent)
and
Louis Libotte, Richard Rouillard, Jean-Claude
Maheux and Attorney General of Canada (Mis-
en- cause)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Montreal, April 6, 1978.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Chairman of
Board of Referees refusing to grant leave to appeal Board's
decision on ground that leave not justified by new facts —
Absence of new facts not sufficient to refuse to' grant leave to
appeal — Application allowed and matter referred back —
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, s.
96(1) — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10,
s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
André -Gilles Brodeur for applicant.
Jean-Marc Aubry for respondent and mis -en-
cause.
SOLICITORS:
Sherbrooke Legal Aid Office, Sherbrooke, for
applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent and mis -en-cause.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
PRATTE J.: Applicant is challenging the validity
of the decision of the Chairman of a Board of
Referees, who, acting under section 96 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-
71-72, c. 48, refused her leave to appeal a decision
of the Board of Referees.
The Chairman gave the following reasons for his
refusal to grant leave as requested:
[TRANSLATION] Having taken into consideration the reasons
for appeal to the Umpire, the Chairman of the Board of
Referees feels that there are no new facts that would justify
granting leave to appeal to the Umpire and therefore refuses to
grant such leave.
According to section 96, the absence of new
facts is not in itself sufficient to justify the Chair
man in refusing to grant leave to appeal. Thus,
section 96 states that:
96. (1) ... an application for leave to appeal shall be
granted by the chairman of the board of referees if it appears to
him that there is a principle of importance involved in the case
or there are other special circumstances by reason of which
leave to appeal ought to be granted.
For these reasons it appears to this Court that
the decision of the Chairman has no basis in law,
that it should be set aside and that the case should
be referred back to the Chairman for a decision on
applicant's application for leave to appeal as
required by section 96(1).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.