A-483-76
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Jean-Charles Blanchet (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Quebec, February 8, 1977.
Unemployment insurance — Unemployment due to injury
Group sickness or wage-loss indemnity policy Termination
on leaving service of employer — Two employers listed as
"employer" under the policy Whether the policy portable
— Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c.
48, s. 25(a) — Unemployment Insurance Regulations, ss.
172(2), 172(3.1), 172(3.2), 172(3.3).
The benefits of a group policy are taken into account in
determining an applicant's unemployment insurance benefits,
unless the plan can meet the conditions necessary not to be
considered a group plan. One condition is that the plan be
completely portable. The respondent had received benefits from
a group sickness or wage-loss indemnity plan issued on behalf
of the employees of two employers the respondent's employer
and another. The policy contained a clause that it would
terminate automatically on the employee's leaving his employ
er's service. An Umpire decided that this plan was completely
portable, despite this termination clause, because the employee
could work for the other employer without losing his benefits
under the plan. The applicant appealed from the Umpire's
decision.
Held, the appeal is allowed. An indemnity plan is portable
within the meaning of the provision only when the rights and
obligations of the employee under the plan remain the same if
the employee moves to the service of any other employer. This
insurance does not fulfil this requirement, and consequently the
Umpire was in error when he held that it was completely
portable.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Jean-Marc Aubry for applicant.
Jean-Charles Blanchet for himself.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Jean-Charles Blanchet, Dégelis, Quebec, for
himself.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
PRATTE J.: Applicant asks the Court to set aside
the decision of an Umpire acting under Part V of
the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, who
allowed respondent's appeal and held that in deter
mining the amount of unemployment insurance
benefits to which respondent was entitled, it was
necessary to take into account the payments he
had received under a sickness or disability wage-
loss indemnity contract while he was unemployed.
According to section 25(a) of the Unemploy
ment Insurance Act, 1971, and section 172(2) of
the Regulations, it is necessary to take into
account the "... amount of payments a claimant
has received or ... is entitled to receive under a
group sickness or disability wage-loss indemnity
plan .. ." in determining the amount of benefits
payable to a person who is incapable of work by
reason of injury or illness. Section 172(3.1) of the
Regulations specifies the conditions which an
indemnity plan must fulfil if it is not to be con
sidered a group plan. One of these conditions is
that the sickness or disability wage-loss indemnity
plan in question should be completely "portable",
which is defined in section 172(3.2) as follows:
172. (3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1) "portable",
in respect of any plan referred to therein, means that benefits to
which an employee covered thereby is entitled and the rate of
premium he is required to pay while employed by an employer
will remain equivalent if he becomes employed by any other
employer.
It is established that respondent was unem
ployed because he was "incapable of work by
reason of ... injury", and that during this period
he received weekly payments under a sickness or
disability wage-loss indemnity policy issued by
"Les Prévoyants of Canada". If we were to con
clude, as the Umpire did, that the plan was "com-
pletely portable" within the meaning of sections
172(3.2) and 172(3.3), it would follow that this
indemnity policy constitutes a "sickness or disabili
ty wage-loss indemnity plan that is not a group
plan" within the meaning of section 172(3.1) of
the Regulations. The only problem raised by this
case is therefore that of determining whether the
Umpire was justified in holding that the weekly
payments received by respondent while he was
unemployed were paid to him under an indemnity
plan which was not "completely portable".
The sickness or disability wage-loss indemnity
policy involved was a group sickness or disability
wage-loss indemnity policy (in the accepted sense
of the term) issued on behalf of the employees of
two different employers: TEMIS ÉLECTRIQUE
LTÉE, for which respondent worked, and YVON
PELLETIER MEUBLES. Both these employers were
designated in the policy as "the Employer". The
policy contained the following clause:
[TRANSLATION] The insurance of the employee and his
dependants shall terminate automatically on the first of the
following dates:
1. the date on which the employee leaves the service of the
Employer ....
If the Umpire felt that the indemnity plan was
completely portable despite this clause, it was
because the expression "the Employer" in the
policy in fact designated two employers. An
insured employee could therefore move from the
service of one of these employers to that of the
other without the indemnity plan being termina
ted. This was sufficient, according to the Umpire,
to make the indemnity plan "completely portable".
In my opinion, the Umpire's decision is incom
patible with section 172(3.2) of the Regulations if
it is interpreted with reference to the English text
thereof, which reads as follows:
172. (3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1) "portable",
in respect of any plan referred to therein, means that benefits to
which an employee covered thereby is entitled and the rate of
premium he is required to pay while employed by an employer
will remain equivalent if he becomes employed by any other
employer.
The words un autre employeur at the end of the
French text of section 172(3.2) are translated in
the English text as "any other employer". This
being the case, it is evident that an indemnity plan
is portable within the meaning of this provision
only when the rights and obligations of the
employee under the plan remain the same if the
employee moves to the service of any other
employer. In the case at bar the insurance plan
does not fulfil this requirement, and consequently
the Umpire was in error when he held that it was
completely portable.
For these reasons, I would quash the Umpire's
decision and return the case to him so that he may
decide it on the basis that the indemnity plan
under which respondent received payments was
not a portable plan within the meaning of section
172(3.2) of the Regulations.
* * *
LE DAIN J. concurred.
* * *
HYDE D.J. concurred.
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.