| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
Summary:
In CUB 18653, I held it was an error in law for a Board to refer to "just cause" in considering a disqualification under s. 27. The test for "good cause" has been well established by the case law as being what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in similar circumstances.
In light of new ss. 28(4) and of my understanding that "just cause" in s. 28 reflects a more stringent standard than "good cause" in s. 27, the obligation of claimant to care for her children ought to have been considered in assessing whether she had good cause for declining to return to previous job.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
Summary:
If the Act were unchanged I would consider BERTRAND as a precedent to be followed. While s. 27 has not been changed, s. 28 now provides that just cause exists where claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving because of an obligation to care for a child. To be considered also as good cause.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
Summary:
The mere fact that she had previously worked there, in itself, does not mean that her failure to return after maternity leave was without good cause. Her circumstances had changed: she had additional obligations to an infant child and former arrangements for transportation were no longer available.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
refusal of work |
transportation difficulties |
|
Summary:
Her obligation to care for her children, her inability to arrange satisfactory child care to permit her to return to work after maternity leave, and her inability to arrange satisfactory transportation (ride no longer available) constitute good cause. Test of a reasonable and prudent person.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
In CUB 18653, I held it was an error in law for a Board to refer to "just cause" in considering a disqualification under s. 27. The test for "good cause" has been well established by the case law as being what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in similar circumstances.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Summary:
Disqualification based on claimant's non-return to work after maternity leave removed because of new ss. 28(4) including an obligation to care for a child. Held that she was not available due to restrictions to evening work and due to her failure to make satisfactory child care arrangements.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
|
Summary:
Available from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. A claimant who, for whatever reason (here obligation to care for a child), limits the hours she is prepared to work, particularly if little or no work available in those hours, is not available. Availability is to be established for hours generally applicable.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Summary:
I note that by a letter to the Umpire claimant indicates that she is now available from 2 p.m. to midnight and on weekends. That change may only be relevant for a determination by the Commission of the appropriate date to terminate her disentitlement, a matter not raised in this appeal.
