A-340-79
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Jean Daigneault (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and
Lalande D.J.—Montreal, October 11, 1979.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Work stop
page — All employees in bargaining unit, which did not
represent all employees of the business, ceased to work —
Production continued at 85% of normal — Umpire held there
was no work stoppage within s. 44 of the Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1971 — Whether or not a work stoppage
existed within the meaning of s. 44 — Unemployment Insur
ance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, s. 44 — Federal Court
Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Jean Marc Aubry for applicant.
George Marceau for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Dayon, Laplante & Munn, Montreal, for
respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court rendered by
PRATTE J.: In our opinion, this application
should be allowed.
In the case before the Court, all the employees
in a bargaining unit, which represented only a part
of the employees of a business, had in fact ceased
work. Despite this cessation of work, the Umpire
held that there had not been a work stoppage
within the meaning of section 44 of the Unemploy
ment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48,
because, as he put it:
[TRANSLATION] It was established that the business con
tinued to function, that production continued at over 85 per
cent of normal, and that the business continued to collect dues
from its subscribers.
In our opinion this decision was wrong in law.
When, as here, all the employees in a bargaining
unit have in fact ceased working, that cessation of
work may or may not constitute a work stoppage
within the meaning of section 44, depending on the
circumstances; but the fact that the cessation of
work is reflected in a decrease in production of the
business as a whole of less than 15 per cent is not a
sufficient reason for concluding that there was not
a work stoppage within the meaning of section 44.
The decision of the Umpire will accordingly be
quashed and the case referred back to be decided
again by him.
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.