A-143-80
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Jean Simoneau (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Heald JJ. and
Lalande D.J.—Montreal, March 23, 1981.
Judicial review — Unemployment insurance — Work stop
page — Decision of Umpire entitling respondent to unemploy
ment insurance benefits — Application to review and set aside
Umpire's decision because of termination of work stoppage
Whether the fact that an employer has managed to continue or
resume operations means that the work stoppage by his
employees has terminated — Unemployment Insurance 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.
Pierre Leduc for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Pierre Leduc, c/o Confederation of National
Trade Unions, Montreal, for respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: We all feel that this application
should be allowed.
The Umpire had to decide whether respondent
was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits
despite section 44 of the Act [Unemployment In
surance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48], which
excludes anyone "who has lost his employment by
reason of a stoppage of work attributable to a
labour dispute", as long as the work stoppage
continues.
It was established that on January 26, 1977
more than 25 employees working at the CJMS
radio station in Montreal went on strike, and that
this strike was still in progress in October 1977. It
was further established that the strike was
attributable to a labour dispute which was also still
in progress in October 1977. In spite of this, the
Umpire held that the work stoppage of the CJMS
employees had ceased in the spring of 1977,
because since that time the employer, by resorting
to temporary and exceptional measures, had been
broadcasting almost normal programming. Merely
by virtue of the fact that, using a computer, the
employer had managed to broadcast daily for the
usual length of time programs which did not differ
to any great extent from those broadcast earlier,
the Umpire concluded that the work stoppage had
terminated. In our opinion, he erred in law in
doing so.
The question of whether a work stoppage has
terminated is a question of fact in each case.
However, it is clear that when an employer is the
victim of a strike, the work stoppage by his
employees cannot be said to have terminated
merely because the employer managed to continue
or resume operations.
For these reasons, the decision will be quashed
and the matter referred back to the Umpire to be
decided by him on the assumption that the fact
that an employer has managed to continue or
resume operations does not mean that the work
stoppage by his employees has terminated.
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.