A-647-78
Dawn Cornish-Hardy (Applicant)
v.
Board of Referees constituted under section 91 of
the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Pratte J. and Smith
D.J.—Vancouver, April 11, 1979.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Section 58(i)
of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 is not intended to
authorize, and Regulation 175 does not provide for, a scheme
under which claimants are entitled to have applications for
remission considered and disposed of by decisions appealable
under section 94 — Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C.
1970-71-72, c. 48, ss. 54(1), 57(1),(2), 58(i), 94 — Unemploy
ment Insurance Regulations, SOR/71-324, s. 175 — Federal
Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Allan H. MacLean for applicant.
J. Williamson for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Vancouver Community Legal Assistance
Society, Vancouver, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
JACKETT C.J.: I have come to the conclusion
that section 94 of the Unemployment Insurance
Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, does not confer
a right of appeal on a person who unsuccessfully
seeks a remission under Regulation 175, SOR/71-
324, when that regulation is read as a whole with
section 58(i) of the Act under which provision it
was made.
Section 94 clearly confers a right of appeal on a
"claimant"' who is aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission disposing of a claim for benefit (sec-
' "Claimant" is defined by section 2 of the Act to mean "a
person who applies or has applied for benefit under this Act".
tion 54(1)) or on a reconsideration of such a claim
(section 57(1),(2)). It is not necessary to express
any view whether section 94 confers on a "claim-
ant" an appeal from any other decision of the
Commission. It is sufficient to say that, in my
view, section 58(1) of the Act was not intended to
authorize, and Regulation 175 does not provide
for, a scheme under which claimants are entitled
to have applications for remission considered and
disposed of by decisions that are appealable under
section 94.
I am of opinion that the section 28 application
should be dismissed.
* * *
PRATTE J. concurred.
* * *
SMITH D.J. concurred.
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.