| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
financing |
|
|
Summary:
One cannot quarrel with the fact that an active involvement in a labour dispute at the place of employment or a free and voluntary contribution by claimant to a strike fund which supports the dispute would trigger disentitlement. [p. 55]
Mandatory payment by an employee of union dues, part of which were diverted to a strike fund handled by the International Union out of which strike pay was issued to members of another local union at same premises, does not constitute financing the dispute. [p. 12]
The use of the present is recommended in the drafting of legislation. This drafting technique does not lead to the conclusion that one is financing solely when he makes a financial contribution while the strike is in progress.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Summary:
Since the purpose of the Act is to make benefits available to the unemployed, a liberal interpretation of re-entitlement provisions is warranted, given the Act was not designed to deprive innocent victims of benefits and also employees do contribute to UI fund. [p. 35].
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Summary:
While legislative history may be useful in providing the background and assisting in determining the purpose of legislation, the interpretation of the statute must be ascertained from the words used by the Legislature to convey its intent. [p. 51]
What the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication. [quoted from a judgment at p. 41]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
Summary:
I agree that the values embodied in the Charter [freedom of association] must be given preference over an interpretation which would run contrary to them. [p. 62]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
each word counts |
|
Summary:
In reading a statute it must be assumed that each term, each sentence and each paragraph has been deliberately drafted with a specific result in mind. Parliament chooses its words carefully: it does not speak "gratuitously".
This is not to say that the provision has lost all meaning. Even if the word "financing" were to be excised, the provisions would still retain its usefulness as regards other disentitlement provisions therein contained. [p. 58]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
labour dispute |
rationale |
|
Summary:
Since the purpose of the Act is to make benefits available to the unemployed, a liberal interpretation of re-entitlement provisions is warranted, given the Act was not designed to deprive innocent victims of benefits and also employees do contribute to UI fund. [p. 35]
The purpose of s.31 as well as the purpose of the Act as a whole (to provide benefits to involuntarily unemployed persons) dictate that a narrow interpretation be given to the disentitlement provisions of that section. Any doubt (as stated in ABRAHAMS) should be resolved in favour of the claimant.
Re: principle of neutrality underlying the labour dispute provisions. This rationale has been criticized. As originally enacted in England and later incorporated in Canada, it does not today enjoy much favour due to different states of labour relations.[p. 35-38]
