| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The FCA concluded that the Board erred in law when it ruled on the claimant's availability in considering the facts and circumstances subsequent to the moment at which she left her job. We gather from the ruling that the circumstances should be analysed from the moment at which the claimant lost her job. The Court also made reference to the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Cornelissen-O'Neil by mentioning that the Umpire was supposed to give a ruling on the Commission's second ground of appeal, which concerned the issue of the claimant's availability. To the Umpire alone, this ground could, with supporting evidence, justify the refusal to grant benefits regardless of what mitigating circumstances there may be.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Summary:
The Umpire upheld the ruling by the BOR that stated the claimant was justified in leaving her job to seek better working conditions. The Commission maintained that the members in the majority had erred in fact and in law when they concluded that the claimant had shown just cause within the meaning of the Act to leave her job. The Commission maintained that the BOR had failed to consider the fact that the claimant had left a permanent job to accept one that did not guarantee permanence and that had essentially resulted in unemployment. The Commission maintained that the BOR should consider the issue of the amount of time remaining in the job prior to the end of the school year and the resulting loss of employment.
