EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Garley
A-254-03
2004 FCA 24, Sharlow J.A. (Rothstein J.A. concurring) and Strayer J.A. (dissenting)
15/1/04
3 pp.
Per Sharlow J.A. (Rothstein J.A. concurring): Umpire not erring in concluding open to Board of Referees to find workforce reduction "permanent" for purposes of Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 51(2)(b)--Per Strayer J.A. (dissenting): Umpire, Board of Referees ignored requirement of s. 51(2)(b) that objective of work-reduction process be permanent reduction in overall number of employees-- Essential criterion to allow finding of "just cause" for respondent voluntarily severing employment--Error of law-- If instead Umpire taken to have concluded facts supported finding of permanent arrangement, such finding made without regard to material before Board, Umpire--Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332, s. 51(2)(b).