A-689-78
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Pierre Leclerc (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Ryan JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Quebec City, May 24, 1979.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Umpire
allowing respondent to call witnesses but denying Unemploy
ment Insurance Commission that right — Umpire's procedure
was to penalize Commission's negligence in failing to submit
appeal case until after expiry of sixty-day period laid down in
the Regulations — Whether or not decision a quo vitiated by
illegality — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c.
10, s. 28 — Unemployment Insurance Regulations, SOR/76-
248, s. 184(3).
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Jean-Marc Aubry for applicant.
Léon Girard for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Godin, Lacoursière & Girard, Trois-Rivières,
for respondent.
The following is the English version Of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: In accordance with section 28 of the
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c.
10, applicant is seeking to set aside a decision of an
Umpire made pursuant to the Unemployment In
surance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48. By that
decision, the Umpire allowed respondent's appeal
from the decision of a Board of Referees.
Applicant's only contention is that the Umpire
acted unlawfully in that, at the hearing of the
appeal, he denied the Unemployment Insurance
Commission the right, which he had allowed
respondent, to call witnesses.
The Umpire proceeded in this unusual manner
because he wished to penalize, in a way not detri
mental to respondent, the Commission's negligence
in failing to submit the appeal case until after
expiry of the sixty-day period laid down by subsec
tion 184(3) of the Unemployment Insurance
Regulations, SOR/76-248.
We are all of the opinion that the decision a quo
is vitiated by illegality. The Umpire is largely in
control of the procedure followed in hearing
appeals; however, he must apply the same rules to
both sides. He may not, solely in order to penalize
one side for a delay, deny it a right which he
allows the other side.
For these reasons, the decision a quo will be
quashed and the case returned to be decided after
a new hearing, in which the same rights will be
accorded to both sides.
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.