Federal Appeal


Public Law

Social programs

Employment insurance

Source of payment not pertinent for purposes of s. 36(9) of Employment Insurance Regulations

Employee’s appeal to Appeal Division of Social Security Tribunal was dismissed. Employee applied for judicial review to Federal Court of Appeal. Application dismissed. Decision of Appeal Division of Social Security Tribunal was reasonable. Source of payment not pertinent for purposes of s. 36(9) of Employment Insurance Regulations, only that it was paid by reason of layoff. Indemnity became payable as of date of layoff when employee became unemployed.

Champagne c. Canada (Procureur général) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 1914, 2018 CAF 79, Nadon J.A., Richard Boivin J.A., and de Montigny J.A. (F.C.A.).


cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?
RESULTS ❯