Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date:20010123

     Docket: A-518-99



CORAM:      STRAYER J.A.

         NOËL J.A.

         EVANS J.A.

BETWEEN:


             RAYMOND F. PASQUAN

     Applicant

    

     - and -             

    

                            

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent






    

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, January 23, 2001


Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

on Tuesday, January 23, 2001

                                




REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:              NOËL J.A.



Date: 20010123


Docket: A-518-99



CORAM:      STRAYER J.A.

         NOËL J.A.

         EVANS J.A.

BETWEEN:


             RAYMOND F. PASQUAN

     Applicant

    

     - and -             

    

                            

     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent



     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

     on Tuesday, January 23, 2001)


NOËL J.A.

         _.      This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Umpire dismissing the applicant's appeal of a decision of the Board of Referees which had held that the applicant had voluntarily terminated his employment without just cause and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
         _.      The applicant complained before the Umpire that he was unable to confront his employer Stan Noort during the proceeding before the Board of Referees. The applicant contends that Mr. Noort had agreed to indicate he had been laid off rather than terminated on the separation form and that his testimony would bring this to light. There is no merit to this argument. As the Umpire pointed out, the essence of the applicant's argument is that Mr. Noort should have misrepresented the cause for the cessation of his employment.
         _.      The applicant also argued that he had just cause for leaving his employment. However, after reviewing the evidence, we are satisfied that the Umpire committed no error in refusing to interfere with the decision of the Board on this ground.
         _.      The applicant also raised certain constitutional arguments which do not appear to have been raised before the Umpire. In any event, these arguments appear to us to be without merit.
         _.      This application will be dismissed with costs.

                                 "Marc Noël"

                                

     J.A.

              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                            

DOCKET:                  A-518-99

STYLE OF CAUSE:              RAYMOND F. PASQUAN

     Applicant

                     - and -             


                     DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent


DATE OF HEARING:          TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2001

PLACE OF HEARING:          TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      NOËL J.A.

Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, January 23, 2001


APPEARANCES BY:          Mr. Raymond F. Pasquan

                        

                         The Applicant on His Own Behalf

                        

                     Mr. Derek Edwards

                         For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:      Raymond F. Pasquan

                     11 Putney Road

                     Etobicoke, Ontario

                     M8W 2K6

                         The Applicant on His Own Behalf

                     Morris Rosenberg

                     Deputy Attorney General of Canada

    

                         For the Respondent

                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 20010123


Docket: A-518-99

                        

                         BETWEEN:

                         RAYMOND F. PASQUAN

     Applicant

    

                         - and -             

    

                            

                         DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

                         OF CANADA

     Respondent


                    

                        

                        

                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

                        

 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.