Summary of Issue: Obligation To Care For A Child

Decision 73848 Full Text of Decision 73848

The claimant, who was working in Ontario and living in his parents' home with his two children, quit his job to move to Nova Scotia and live there with family members. The move apparently was made for the benefit of the claimant's young son who suffers from severe ADHD and the claimant's parents who had suffered heart attacks were having difficulties dealing with the situation. A physician in Ontario who was treating the claimant's son provided a letter which suggested to increase family support because of psychological concerns with respect to his son X." The Commission was of the opinion that the claimant had just cause for leaving his job.. The claimant's appeal is allowed, allowing benefits.

Decision 67847 Full Text of Decision 67847

What the Board meant to do was to refer to s. 29(c)(v), which is the obligation to care for a member of your immediate family. Unfortunately, however, a grandchild is not considered to be immediate family and their conclusion was in error.

Decision 54259 Full Text of Decision 54259

Claimant left her employment because her babysitter could no longer look after her child. Claimant admitted that she did not check with her employer to determine whether she could make other arrangements, but pointed out that she did not have a vehicle and that any variation in her hours of work would be difficult, if not impossible. Appeal allowed by BOR. Decision reversed by Umpire. Having problems with childcare is not just cause for leaving one's employment and the claimant's leaving was not the only reasonable alternative in her case.

Decision 52300 Full Text of Decision 52300

Claimant quit her job as she could not find adequate child care for her three children at a reasonable cost. Claimant disqualified for voluntarily leaving her job without just cause. Decision maintained. BOR concluded that difficulties in finding babysitter based on the cost of such services do not constitute just cause as such expenses are considered normal expenditures of a personal nature. Decision upheld by Umpire. References made to CUBs 24160, 26989, 28825 and 33050.

Decision 33050 Full Text of Decision 33050

Claimant did not pursue all reasonable alternatives to voluntarily quitting because of child care costs. Umpire found no evidence as to whether or not claimant asked for a leave of absence and had she done so whether the employer would have granted one to claimant (re: CUBs 24160, 28825 and 26989).

Decision 29980 Full Text of Decision 29980

Claimant left her job in B.C. to move to NFLD to care for her boyfriend's terminally ill daughter. The claimant had never lived with the child and had not been in any kind of motherly relationship with the child. Facts of the case do not support the legal requirements of par. 28(4)(e).

Decision A-0479.94 Full Text of Decision A-0479.94

Nothing contradictory between S.14 and S.28 of the Act. A person who quits his or her job to care for a sick child will not be disqualified, but he or she will not be eligible to start receiving benefits until he or she is available for work. The two provisions function independently.

Decision 25001 Full Text of Decision 25001

Refer to: A-0479.94

Decision 28825 Full Text of Decision 28825

Left when, due to legislative changes, she lost her subsidized childcare (4 children aged 1 to 6). Held by the Board that 28(4)(e) did not apply as she did not meet the test of no reasonable alternative in that she did not ask her employer for a leave to seek alternative childcare. No error in law.

Decision 28820 Full Text of Decision 28820

The argument that the cultural imperatives for a Sikh family expect parents to live with and give support to their grown children (aged 23 and 28, one married and the other studying) when they take up residence in a new location was dismissed as not making sense and not convincing.

Decision 27469 Full Text of Decision 27469

Her husband's employment required him to be available 7 days a week from 4:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She was required to work until 6:00 p.m. 2 nights a week and her care giver would only babysit until 5:30 p.m. Change in hours not possible. No other babysitter. No other reasonable alternative.

Decision 26989 Full Text of Decision 26989

Para. 28(4)(e) has no application to the factual situation facing claimant at the material time. Her complaint is that it was costing her too much to send her children to daycare. No evidence that she was obliged to quit to care for her children but only that it was expensive to pay for daycare.

Decision 26053 Full Text of Decision 26053

A Court order gives claimant visitation rights for Sunday and Monday of each week. The employer, without any notice, informed claimant he could no longer have Mondays off. Ss. 28(4) speaks of taking into consideration "all circumstances", also an obligation to care for a child. This applies here.

Decision 25397 Full Text of Decision 25397

The Board failed to take adequate consideration of relevant evidence before it concerning the special needs of this family as to child care in the home (4 children) and the cost of that in relation to what the claimant could possibly earn in the only job available to her. Nor is there any precise evidence as to whether the husband did in fact have paying work in the spring of 1993 that made it reasonable for him to go out to work and for her to quit her job (to look after their four children).

Decision 24160 Full Text of Decision 24160

With respect to 28(4)(e), I do not think this is intended to cover absence of a babysitter or being available only weekends because of having a baby to care for (which are issues pertaining to availability).

Decision 24069 Full Text of Decision 24069

Para. 28(4)(e) would seem to be intended to deal with situations where employment has to be given up to care for a child, and not to justify refusal to work regular hours required by an employer because this interferes with day care arrangements for a child when both parents are working.

Decision 23848 Full Text of Decision 23848

Claimant, an on-call worker, cited child care arrangements as the reason for leaving. That, on its own, does not amount to just cause. She draws my attention to para. 28(4)(e). However, the section provides that claimant should have no reasonable alternative to leaving. No such evidence here.

Decision 23390 Full Text of Decision 23390

Claimant stated that shift work was creating problems for her in caring for her daughter who had to be with her at the day care centre (at work) part of the time. I do not think the Board had adequate regard to the test now defined in 28(4) and the clause "obligation to care for a child".

Decision 22574 Full Text of Decision 22574

Claimant felt that his daughter was in dangerous circumstances in the custody of her mother. However, he has never had legal custody of his daughter. Initially, his wife had custody under an interim custody order and subsequently under a permanent one. He did not have to leave to look after a child.

Decision 21401 Full Text of Decision 21401

The job involved irregular hours and she sometimes had to work as much as 60 hours, respond to emergencies at odd hours of the day and night and take her 3 children with her. The specified cause in s. 28 "obligation to care for a child" clearly applies in this case.