Decision A0250.11

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A0250.11 Maughan  Noël  English 2012-01-31
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Judicial Review Dismissed  No Commission  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment  personal reasons  illness in family 

Summary:

The claimant was approved for training under section 25 of the EIA. Three weeks prior to the commencement of his training, the claimant quit his employment for personal reasons stating that he had to quit his employment as he needed to care for his ill sister and prepare for his return to school. He was the only one in his immediate family who was available to provide this care. The Commission found that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. Just cause is not defined in the Act but the various subsections to Section 29(c) do compel a Board to have regard to all the circumstances of a particular situation to see whether just cause exists, more particularly the subsection 29(c)(v) of the Act: obligation to care for a member of the immediate family. The FCA held that the claimant had just cause for leaving his employment and thus the application for judicial review failed on this ground.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment  availability for work  Family realated illness 

Summary:

The claimant was approved for training under section 25 of the EIA from September 1, 2010 to June 22, 2012. Three weeks prior to the commencement of his training, the claimant quit his employment for personal reasons stating that he had to quit his employment as he needed to care for his ill sister and prepare for his return to school. The Commission found that the claimant was not entitled to regular benefits from August 12, 2010 to August 27, 2010 because he had failed to prove his availability. The BOR found the issue of availability was a nullity following the finding on the issue of just cause for the voluntary leaving. The FCA found that both the BOR and Umpire failed to deal with the issue of availability which was before them. The FCA found that because the claimant had to care for his sister on a continuous and ongoing basis during this period, he was not available for work.


Date modified: