Decision A-0978.88

Summary:

The distinction established under the antedating procedure between those who were and those who were not qualified to benefit on the prior day, creates 2 separate groups who are not equal. On this basis, there can be no breach of s.15 of the Charter.

---

Summary:

Whether an interruption of earnings is required to antedate claim prior to 5-1-86 under Bill C-50. The Court examined the Debates of the House of Commons. Parliament's intention is clear. Language used in para. 4(a) is clear.

---

Summary:

I find myself in agreement with the view that "where there is no ambiguity in the statutory language and the legislative meaning is not obscure, the Courts must yield to the sovereignty of the legislature". Judges may adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find in material permitted by law to refer as aids an expression of Parliament's purpose. Courts may look to Debates of the House of Commons to ascertain the "mischief or evil" that an enactment was designed to correct.

---

Summary:

In GRANGER, Pratte wrote that a judge is bound by the law and cannot refuse to apply it even on grounds of equity. I adopt this view. To attempt to fashion an equitable remedy would be an improper intrusion into matters within exclusive competence of Parliament.

---

Summary:

The distinction established under the antedating procedure between those who were and those who were not qualified to benefit on the prior day, creates 2 separate groups who are not equal. On this basis, there can be no breach of s.15 of the Charter.

---