Carole Bureau

The respondent lost her job shortly after turning 65 and was denied regular unemployment insurance benefits due to the age restriction in s. 31 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

She appealed to a Board of Referees, arguing the provision violated s. 15 of the Charter, but the Board upheld the denial without deciding the constitutional issue.

The Federal Court of Appeal directly reviewed the decision and found the provision unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board of Referees lacked the statutory mandate to decide Charter questions, and thus the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to make a final determination on the issue.

However, addressing the substantive issue, the Court found that s. 31 violated s. 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of age and could not be justified under s. 1, as it did not minimally impair the respondent's rights.

The applicants brought a motion to state four constitutional questions pursuant to Rule 32(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court reviewed the proposed questions and the 1984 amendment to Rule 32(1), which clarified that constitutional questions under the Charter are only stated when the constitutional validity, applicability, or operability of a statute or regulation is raised.

The Court found that questions 1 and 2 met this test, but questions 3 and 4 did not.

The motion was granted in part, and time was extended to state questions 1 and 2 only.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which affirmed an Umpire's decision under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act regarding the deductibility of pension benefits paid into an R.R.S.P. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that neither the Board of referees nor the Umpire had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

The appellant received unemployment insurance benefits until he was hospitalized for a work-related injury during his extended benefit period.

He received temporary total workmen's compensation payments, suspending his unemployment benefits.

After recovering, he applied for an extension of his benefit period under s. 20(7)(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The application was dismissed on the basis that s. 36 disentitled him to extended benefits because he was not capable of and available for work.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 20(7) is intended to apply to an extension of a benefit period in respect of extended benefit, and the claimant is entitled to an extension despite being disentitled under s. 36 during his incapacity.