Decision A-0076.02
Full Text of Decision A-0076.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant left his employment because he had an opportunity to get a better job, but after attending a training institute. The Court found that the BOR misused the applicable test in concluding that the claimant had acted as a prudent person would and under undue pressure by the employer. The Court stated that when faced with a determination on just cause, the BOR must determine if the claimant had "no alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances"
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision A-0089.02
Full Text of Decision A-0089.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
The claimant, after applying for employment, attended what he thought was a training session that day, then left without returning. A record of employment and a pay cheque were issued but never picked-up by the claimant. The Court found that, where the evidence supports that conclusion, the claimant will be considered as being employed, even though the claimant may have had reason to think otherwise. The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.
Decision 53282
Full Text of Decision 53282
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0089.02
Decision 39026
Full Text of Decision 39026
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Subsection 28(3) of the Act provides that the term “employment” refers to “the claimant’s last employment immediately prior to the time his claim for benefit is made unless otherwise prescribed by the regulations.” Section 59.1 of the Regulations provides that employment held by a claimant during his benefit period must be taken into account for the purposes of s. 28 of the Act.
Decision A-0492.94
Full Text of Decision A-0492.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Left to take a course. The argument that she falls within para. 28(4)(f) on the basis that her internship constituted employment, albeit without remuneration, is not valid. Remuneration, actual or eventual, for the services rendered is necessary in order for a job to constitute employment (BERUBE).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length indefinite |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
employment defined |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
Decision 23934
Full Text of Decision 23934
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Employed as building manager/superintendent. Upon rehiring the former manager, the employer wanted claimant to work in a subordinate position. Held that a new position was created which claimant was offered. His intention to reject that offer does not mean that he was leaving his employment.
Decision 23740
Full Text of Decision 23740
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Claimant left his janitorial part-time job which he obtained while he was collecting UI benefits and which paid less than what he was allowed as admissible earnings, that is this job had no impact on his benefit rate. Held that a 3-week disqualification was properly imposed.
Decision 19823
Full Text of Decision 19823
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
According to insured, did not really quit job; worked only irregularly, on call; refers to MORISSETTE. Decision to the effect he voluntarily left an irregular position on call for another of same nature before having obtained assurances.
Decision A-0230.01
Full Text of Decision A-0230.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
At some point in his benefit period, the claimant began working part time in a job that he subsequently left so that he could begin a training course. Claimant disentitled for having left his employment when it was not the case that he had no reasonable alternative. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. Referring to decisions in Estabrooks (A-0787.96) and Locke (A-0799.95), the Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground that disentitlement was unavoidable under the current legislation.
Decision 50899
Full Text of Decision 50899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
See indexed summary under FCA A-0230.01
Decision A-0787.96
Full Text of Decision A-0787.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Lost f/t job in 09-92 and benefits paid. In 02-93, claimant took a p/t job but left it on 8-08-93 to move and attend university. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0302.97
Full Text of Decision A-0302.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Claimant lost his f/t job on 14-07-93 and started to receive benefits. He applied to take a course, which did not begin until 10-11-93. In mid-August 93, he took a p/t job and left it without just cause on 4-09-93. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0299.97
Full Text of Decision A-0299.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Claimant employed f/t by the University of Ottawa and holding a p/t job elsewhere at the same time. On 31-12-94, claimant lost his job, applied for EI and began to receive benefits. On 25-02-95, he left his p/t job without just cause. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0799.95
Full Text of Decision A-0799.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Held by FCA that ss. 59.1(1) of the Reg., when interpreted in conjunction with ss. 30.1(2) of the Act, means that the loss of any employment without just cause by a claimant, since the beginning of the qualifying period, will trigger the application of s. 28 disqualification regardless of whether it was a p/t job held concurrently with another or whether it occurred after the establishment of a benefit period based on a lay off from some other regular employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0576.95
Full Text of Decision A-0576.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Lost work on 23-8-93 due to misconduct. Obtained work elsewhere 30-8-93 and after 3 months was laid off. Upon filing claim, was disqualified by reason of previous employment. Held by Umpire that MCLAUGHLIN (A-244-94) applies. The FCA disagreed with the applicability of that decision since it was prior to the enactment of R. 59.1. When read with S.28 of the UI Act, it allows the Commission to impose a disqualification where a claimant loses a job for misconduct but subsequently becomes re-employed and claims benefits as a result of a lay off from the 2nd job. An accumulation of additional insurable weeks from the disqualifying event is necessary to requalify.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
make regulations |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision 31607
Full Text of Decision 31607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
The scheme of s.28 of the UIA and s.59.1 of the UIR is such that where a claimant has not accumulated sufficient insurable weeks in the new employment to qualify for UI, it is necessary to have regard to whether he left his previous employment with justcause. If not, UI benefits are denied.
Decision 31562
Full Text of Decision 31562
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Indefinite disqualification previously imposed. Claimant subsequently worked 8 weeks while 16 weeks needed to requalify. Cannot avoid disqualification on an earlier employment: did not subsequently earn the required number of weeks to qualify for a claim based on those weeks alone.
Decision 29771
Full Text of Decision 29771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Left job in 9-93 to pursue education. Employed from 12-93 and laid off in 3-94. Upon filing claim, was disqualified for leaving previous job. Reg.59.1(1): clear that lost employment referred to in s.28 is last employment left vol. without just cause since the commencement of the Qualifying Period.
Decision 28797
Full Text of Decision 28797
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Lost work on 23-8-93 due to misconduct. Obtained work elsewhere 30-8-93 and was laid off due to lack of work after more than 3 months. Upon filing claim, was disqualified by reason of previous employment. MCLAUGHLIN applies. Misconduct with respect to first job cannot be used to disqualify claimant.
Decision A-0141.94
Full Text of Decision A-0141.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Benefit period established with respect to full-time work as accountant. Subsequently worked as taxi driver and left voluntarily. The Umpire did not err in effectively holding that the term "claim for benefit" as used in ss. 28(3) refers to an "initial claim" rather than a "continuing claim".
Decision 24074
Full Text of Decision 24074
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0141.94
Decision 27093
Full Text of Decision 27093
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Argued that: not a voluntary separation if a person accepts employment while receiving benefits. Ss. 28(3) does not refer to the last employment before the initial claim, but to the last before the current claim. The claimant must fulfill all the conditions every two weeks.
Decision 26599
Full Text of Decision 26599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Argued that the 2 day employment after the initial claim should not be considered. Each claim filed every 2 weeks is a new claim (s. 34 of the Regulations). Last employment within the meaning of ss. 28(3) is the employment immediatel preceeding the weeks for which benefit is claimed.
Decision A-0244.94
Full Text of Decision A-0244.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Where there is more than one claim, should a disqualification for misconduct on one particular claim (9-91) also apply to a subsequent claim, irrespective of the cause of such subsequent claim? There must be a causal connection between a disqualification and a claim in respect of which it applies.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
Decision 25400
Full Text of Decision 25400
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
It is argued that "employment" under 28(3) refers to a preceding employment used to qualify her to benefit. The "claim for benefit" referred to in 28(3) is the report card. The last employment prior to submitting the report card is the employment to consider.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 24980
Full Text of Decision 24980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
There has been conflicting jurisprudence on this issue of loss of secondary, part-time employment, when there has been no disqualification for loss of the qualifying employment. CUB 24074 is now in appeal. There is some indication in SMITH S. that such employment is nevertheless to be considered.
Decision 24697
Full Text of Decision 24697
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Left one employment voluntarily and laid off from 2nd employment a week later. Claim filed mid-May 93. The Board held that first employment to be ignored under ss. 28(3). Error in law. First employment to be taken into account under s. 59.1 for the purpose of disqualification.
Decision 24276
Full Text of Decision 24276
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0244.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
Decision 21951
Full Text of Decision 21951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
The loss of employment contemplated in ss. 28(1) is that which gives rise to a claim for UI. It refers to the time period prior to the claim for UI. Once claimant is granted UI, he cannot lose his employment a second time for misconduct or any other cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
applicability |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 17046
Full Text of Decision 17046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
While on UI, claimant accepted work which he then left. He argues that 41(3) and reg. 59(2) do not apply because it was not employment immediately preceding his claim for UI. This was dealt with in CUB 11939 and I accept the reasoning therein.
Decision 11939
Full Text of Decision 11939
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Claim made in 1-84. He subsequently found work which he left in 4-84. He argues that under ss.41(3) 'employment' refers to that immediately preceding his claim of 1-84. I do not accept this. A claim is made every week and the latest employment is to be considered under ss.41(3)
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision 11450
Full Text of Decision 11450
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Dismissed by reason of misconduct on 22-5. Hired by another contractor on same site to commence 29-5 but car accident in the meantime. Ss.28(3) applied by Board to disregard prior employment. Was not employed by second employer. The Board ignored reg._59(2). [p._7-8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
Decision 26627
Full Text of Decision 26627
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
The Board held that the reduction of working hours made the employment non insurable and rescinded the disqualification. Error in law. In reading ss. 28(4) it is quite clear that the insurability factor is not just cause for voluntary separation. Exempt from disqualification for another reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Decision 26039
Full Text of Decision 26039
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
Left employment of 9 hours per week at a rate of $54. CUBs 11416 and 4576 examined. It is clear that s. 28(3) refers to the last employment held by the claimant, whether it be considered as "insurable" or not.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 22056
Full Text of Decision 22056
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
I am far from convinced that a claimant can be disqualified for leaving an employment which by definition is not insurable employment. However, in light of my findings on the other issue it is not necessary for me to deal with this question at the present time.
Decision 11416
Full Text of Decision 11416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
Employed 10 hours a week at $50. Disqualified 2 weeks. No indication in ss.28(3) and reg. 59 that employment means insurable employment. CUB 4576 referred to. Clearly, s.28 applies to employment whether it be insurable or not.
