Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Employment insurance benefits were denied due to a statutory bar linked to work stoppages from labour disputes.

• The core legal question centered on interpreting the term “work stoppage” under section 36 of the Employment Insurance Act.

• The Social Security Tribunal's General Division found no work stoppage, but its decision was overturned on appeal.

• The Appeal Division determined a work stoppage had occurred and disqualified the group from receiving benefits.

• The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Appeal Division's interpretation should be reviewed for correctness.

• The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal Division's decision, applying a reasonableness standard and dismissing the review.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

Tammie Greening and a group of workers were locked out by their employer during a labour dispute. During the lockout period, they applied for employment insurance (EI) benefits. Their applications were denied based on section 36 of the Employment Insurance Act, which disqualifies individuals from receiving EI benefits if their unemployment is due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute.

The group appealed the decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. That tribunal accepted that a labour dispute existed but concluded there was no "work stoppage" because the employer had maintained operations by reallocating non-union staff and hiring summer students and contractors.

Tribunal and appeal process

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission challenged the General Division’s interpretation. The Appeal Division of the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the General Division had misapplied the relevant jurisprudence and misunderstood the legislative purpose and wording of section 36. The Appeal Division ruled that a work stoppage did in fact occur and that the applicants were therefore ineligible for EI benefits.

Greening then brought an application for judicial review to the Federal Court of Appeal, arguing that the Appeal Division’s interpretation should be reviewed on a correctness standard due to the legal significance of the term "work stoppage."

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court rejected Greening’s arguments. It emphasized that questions of statutory interpretation by administrative tribunals are reviewed on a reasonableness standard unless specific exceptions apply, such as questions of central importance to the legal system. In this case, the Court found that no such exception applied.

The Court held that the Appeal Division’s interpretation was reasonable and aligned with the text, context, and legislative purpose of the relevant provisions. It also accepted the Appeal Division’s use of section 53 of the Employment Insurance Regulations as part of its contextual analysis. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

Costs and final orders

The application was dismissed without costs, as none were requested by either party. Additionally, the Court ordered a minor administrative change to formally name the Attorney General of Canada as the sole respondent in the case title.