A-3-87
Louis Vigneault, Roger Boisvert, Lucien Bou-
rassa, Lionel Côté, Michel Crépin, Christian Fon-
taine, Yves Labonté, Renaud Lapointe, Pierre
Levasseur, Normand Pagé, Jacques Veillette,
Yvon Morisette, Yvon Baillargeon, Jean Bouras-
sa, Paul Lesieur and Louis Crête (Applicants)
v.
Canada Employment and Immigration Commis
sion (Respondent)
and
Mr. Justice Pinard, Umpire and Deputy Attorney
General of Canada (Mis -en-cause)
INDEXED AS: VIGNEAULT V. CANADA (CANADA EMPLOYMENT
AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Lacombe and Desjardins
IL—Montréal, March 3, 1988.
Unemployment insurance — Application to review Umpire's
decision payment "earnings" — Whether vacation pay exempt
from earnings under s. 57(3)(h) of Regulations — Applicants
argued "in respect of his severance from employment" refers
only to payments made pursuant to policy, not collective
agreement — French version of statute shows words qualify
both — Application dismissed.
Construction of statutes — Phrase interpreted, in previous
case, by Federal Court of Appeal based on English version of
Unemployment Insurance Regulations — Interpretation incon
sistent with French version — No error in drafting French
version — Reliance on English version alone unjustified —
Only possible interpretation of French version reconcilable
with English — Court not following earlier decision.
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS JUDICIALLY
CONSIDERED
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
Unemployment Insurance Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1576,
s. 57(3)(h) (as am. by SOR/85-288, s. 1).
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72,
c. 48.
CASES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED
NOT FOLLOWED:
Vennari v. Canada (Canada Employment and Immigra
tion Commission), [1987] 3 F.C. 129 (C.A.).
DISTINGUISHED:
R. v. Compagnie Immobilière BCN Ltée, [1979] 1 S.C.R.
865.
COUNSEL:
Jean Guy Ouellet and Gilbert Nadon for
applicants.
Johanne Levasseur for respondent and mis -
en-cause, the Deputy Attorney General of
Canada.
SOLICITORS:
Campeau, Cousineau & Ouellet, Montréal,
for applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent and mis -en-cause, the Deputy
Attorney General of Canada.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: We do not need to hear from you,
Ms. Levasseur.
This is an appeal from a decision of an umpire
under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
[S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48]. According to that deci
sion, vacation pay received by the applicant pursu
ant to a collective agreement in effect prior to
December 31, 1984, constituted earnings within
the meaning of section 57 of the Unemployment
Insurance Regulations [C.R.C., c. 1576 (as am. by
SOR/85-288, s. 1)] because this money was not
paid in respect of the applicant's severance from
employment.
Counsel for the applicant argued that under
paragraph 57(3)(h) of the Regulations, the money
in question did not constitute earnings, even
though this money was not in any way paid in
respect of the applicant's separation from employ
ment. He based his argument on this Court's
recent decision in the Vennari case (Vennari v.
Canada (Canada Employment and Immigration
Commission, [1987] 3 F.C. 129), where Stone J.,
speaking for the Court, said [at pages 142-143]
that the words "in respect of his severance from
employment" qualify only payments made pursu-
ant to an employer's written policy and not those
made pursuant to a collective agreement.
It is clear that this statement by Stone J. was
made in light of the English version of the Regula
tions alone. The interpretation he puts forward,
although consistent with the English version, is
absolutely inconsistent with the French version of
the Regulations, in which the words "qui se rap-
portent à la cessation définitive de son emploi"
clearly qualify moneys paid pursuant to a collec
tive agreement as well as those paid pursuant to an
employer's written policy. This is not a case where,
as in R. v. Compagnie Immobilière BCN Ltée,
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 865, an error was made in the
drafting of the French version of the Regulations,
justifying reliance on the English version alone.
Furthermore, the only possible interpretation of
the French version is easily reconcilable with the
English version, whose meaning it clarifies. It fol
lows, in our view, that the interpretation put for
ward by Stone J. must be rejected and that Ven-
nard should not be followed on this point.
The Umpire therefore decided correctly. The
application under section 28 of the Federal Court,
Act [R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10] will be
dismissed.
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.