THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant v. LINDSAY HENDERSON, 2011 FCA 118

Cour d’appel fédérale Federal Court of Appeal Date: 20110324 Docket: A-455-10 Citation: 2011 FCA 118 CORAM: BLAIS C.J. SHARLOW J.A. STRATAS J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and LINDSAY HENDERSON Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia , on March 24, 2011. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia , on March 24, 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRATAS J.A. Cour d’appel fédérale Federal Court of Appeal Date: 20110324 Docket: A-455-10 Citation: 2011 FCA 118 CORAM: BLAIS C.J. SHARLOW J.A. STRATAS J.A.

BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and LINDSAY HENDERSON Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver , British Columbia, on March 24, 2011) STRATAS J.A. [ 1 ] The Attorney General applies for an order setting aside the decision of Umpire Durocher dated July 5, 2010 (CUB 75108). Both Umpire Durocher and the Board of Referees (in a decision dated March 5, 2010) found that Mr.

Henderson was entitled to extended benefits under the long-tenured worker provisions of the Employment Insurance Act , S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the “Act”), as amended by S.C. 2009, c. 30 (sometimes referred to as Bill C-50). [ 2 ] In our view, the Attorney General’s application must be granted. Extended benefits are available only for those whose “benefit period” was established during certain periods of time: Act, subsections 10(2) to 10(2.4), added by subsection 2(1) of Bill C-50.

The Act does not provide for any discretion to adjust or relieve against this requirement. [ 3 ] Both the Umpire and the Board of Referees found, without statutory support, that Mr. Henderson’s “benefit period” was established when he started to be paid benefits, in May, 2009. On this, they erred in law. Their finding conflicts with the clear wording of

section 9 and subsection 10(1) of the Act , which define the establishment of the “benefit period.” [ 4 ] Mr. Henderson applied for benefits on June 13, 2008. Under the Act,

section 9 and paragraph 10(1)( b ), his “benefit period” was established on the previous Sunday, which was June 8, 2008. That date falls outside of the periods of time set out in the Act for which extended benefits are available. Therefore, the extended benefits were not available in law to Mr. Henderson. [ 5 ] We wish Mr.

Henderson to understand that this ruling is no reflection on him or his work; it is just that the rules that Parliament has set out in its law do not allow him to receive extended benefits in this situation, and we have no choice but to apply the law exactly as Parliament has written it. [ 6 ] Therefore, we shall grant the application, set aside the decision of the Umpire, and remit the matter to the Umpire, with a direction that Mr. Henderson`s claim for extended benefits be dismissed. “David Stratas” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-455-10 AN APPLICATION FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE DENIS DUROCHER, UMPIRE, DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA V. LINDSAY HENDERSON PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: March 24, 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BLAIS C.J. SHARLOW J.A. STRATAS J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: STRATAS J.A. APPEARANCES : Nathan Murray FOR THE APPLICANT Lindsay Henderson ON HIS OWN BEHALF SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE APPLICANT