Back to "FULL REPORT"

first page of document-------------------this document has 3 pages

Mr. J.P.Langsner, ---------------------------------------------------410 Duke Street West,

Employment and Immigration Canada, -------------------------------Apt. 5,

Human Resources Development,-------------------------------------North Bay,

Legal services, -------------------------------------------------------ONTARIO PlB 6G1.

Place du Portage, Phase IV,

4th Floor,-------------------------------------------------------------Tel. (705)840-1522

HULL,

QUEBEC KlA OJ9.

March 2nd, 1996.

Dear Mr. Langsner,

I am writing in reply to your letter dated February 12th 1996 dated February 12th 1996 to Ms. M. Séguin, Registrar at the Office of the Umpire, which letter you copied to me. I have the following comments to make:-

1. Mr. Langsner contends that Mr. Chisholm is asking the Umpire to change his decision of September 13th 1995. That is incorrect.

2. The Umpire' s decision of September 13th 1991 instructed the Commission to "make the appropriate determination", in Mr. Chisholm's case.

3. Mr. Chisholm contends that the Commission failed to "make the appropriate determination", for the reasons set down in his letter of December 11th 1995. These reasons mainly involved referral to re-training, following loss of a job after 17 weeks because the employer was not paying his wages; the details will not be repeated here because Mr. Langsner will by now be fully aware of them.

4. Mr. Chisholm therefore requested, through the Office of the Umpire, that the Commission meet the conditions referred to in his letter of December 11th 1995 in order to properly fulfil the Umpire' s instruction concerning "the appropriate determination" given in CUB 28929.

5. Hence the Umpire is not being asked to "change his decision". Therefore the argument concerning the Umpire now being "functus officio" with respect to Mr. Chisholm's case is irrelevant.

6. Mr. Chisholm's submission dated December 11th 1995 points out that the Commission failed to make "the appropriate determination", for the reasons already referred to. This is a "new fact", which came to exist after the Umpire's ruling of September 13th 1995 (CUB 28929). Therefore the submission as a whole is a legitimate submission, under Section 86 of the Act.

7.Furthermore, the Commission' s treatment of Mr. Chisholm following the Umpire' s decision failed to address Mr. Chisholm's requests for re-training assistance, of which the Commission was fully aware and these were fully documented in the Docket of Appeal to The Umpire, prior to the Umpire's ruling dated

2 pages to go----------. . . (2)

Previous page ---------------------------------- 2 -

September 13th (CUB 28929). In particular, the Commission ignored certain sections of the Act regarding re-training, referred to in Mr. Chisholm' s letter of December 11th, 1995. The Commission also failed to make any move to consult with Mr. Chisholm concerning these sections of the Act prior to making its determination, which Mr. Chisholm contends is not "appropriate" but which is now being presented to him as a "fait accompli".

To summarise, the Commission' s treatment of Mr. Chisholm following CUB 28929 was both slipshod and perfunctory.

8. Mr. Langsner's letter of February 12th refers to the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Conita Chan, in which it was decided that "a different version of facts already known to the claimant, mere afterthoughts or the sudden realisation of the consequences of acts done in the past are not new facts" (for the purposes of Section 86 of the Act).

All the relevant facts were known to the Commission prior to the Umpire' s decision (CUB 28929), and were decisive of the issue put to the Umpire. The criteria "different version of the facts", "mere afterthoughts" and "sudden realisation of the consequences of acts done in the past" do not apply to Mr. Chisholm' s case. The issue here involves the Commission refusing to pay attention to the facts, of which it was already aware.

9. Mr. Langsner then contends that the issue put to the Umpire was whether Mr. Chisholm had "sufficient weeks of insured employment" to "qualify".

That was one of the issues put to the Umpire, but not the only one. The other issues put to the Umpire, concerning re-training, were all in the Docket of Appeal. Hence Mr. Langsner's argument that Mr. Chisholm s "allegations and demands" relating to "referral to re-training" are "not decisive of the issue put to the Umpire" and are "irrelevant" - is totally incorrect.

10. Mr. Langsner then refers to Section 26(8) of the Act and then contends that "the referral (to re-training) issue was not and could not have been before the Board of Referees or the Umpire". One of the issues before the Umpire was whether Mr. Chisholm had "sufficient insurable weeks", to "qualify" for U.I. benefits. As was pointed out in Mr. Chisholm's letter of December 11th 1995, referral to some re-training programmes (in particular, ON-SITE, which Mr. Chisholm had requested to be referred to) is dependent on (a) having "sufficient insurable weeks" to "qualify" for any U.I. benefits at all and (b) if condition (a) applies, having a sufficiently long U.I. benefit period to permit participation in the program (in the case of ON-SITE, currently 26 weeks). Hence, if a question of having "sufficient insurable weeks" is before the Umpire, the question of referral is automically before I the Umpire, simultaneously, by direct consequence. Hence Mr. Langsner' s statement that "the referral issue was not and could not have been before the Board of Referrees or the Umpire" is incorrect; therefore, the Umpire does have jurisdiction to "amend his decision pursuant to Section 86 to refer a claimant to a course".

11. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Chisholm dismisses the arguments in Mr. Langsner' s letter of February12 1996 as being wholly inapplicable to his case, and requests that the Commission implement

1 page to go---------------. . . (3)

Previous page ---------------------------------- 3 -

the conditions set down in Mr. Chisholm' s letter of December 11th 1995 without further argument or delay.

------------------------------Yours faithfully,

ROBERT T. CHISHOLM B.Sc.Hons.(Eng.), C.Eng.(U.K.),

M.I.Mech.E.(U.K.), Jr.Eng.(Quebec). 

Copies for Information.

1. Ms. M. Séguin, Office of the Umpire.

2. Mr.Dean Fleury - Supervisor of Employment Programs, C.E.C. North Bay.

3. Mrs. Marlene Catterall, M.P. for Ottawa West.

4. Mr. Bob Wood, M.P. for Nipissing.

0 pages to go---------------LAST PAGE OF DOCUMENT

Back to first page