Decision A459.15
Full Text of Decision A459.15
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
|
|
Summary:
It has been a practice for the employer since the beginning of the plant’s operations to artificially create seasonal jobs. Two teams of employees would share the work over two six-month periods. During the “rest period”, the employees, including the claimant, claimed and received employment insurance benefits. The SST-Appeal Division determined that the claimant did not voluntarily quit her job. The SST-AD could reasonably conclude that the respondents did not choose to refuse to work so that other employees could work in their place. It was determined that the findings of fact made by the SST-AD are reasonable since they are supported by the testimony heard and the documentary evidence on the record. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Decision A460.15
Full Text of Decision A460.15
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
|
|
Summary:
It has been a practice for the employer since the beginning of the plant’s operations to artificially create seasonal jobs. Two teams of employees would share the work over two six-month periods. During the “rest period”, the employees, including the claimant, claimed and received employment insurance benefits. The SST-Appeal Division determined that the claimant did not voluntarily quit her job. The SST-AD could reasonably conclude that the respondents did not choose to refuse to work so that other employees could work in their place. It was determined that the findings of fact made by the SST-AD are reasonable since they are supported by the testimony heard and the documentary evidence on the record. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Decision 76512
Full Text of Decision 76512
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
Definition of common-law partner |
|
Summary:
The claimant was denied benefits as he voluntarily left his employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Act. He stated that he left his employment to accompany his partner to Kamloops. It is noted they had not lived together; they had been in a relationship for just over seven months. The law is clear, notwithstanding the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which the claimant alluded, in order to establish a common law relationship, one must fall within the parameters of the section of the Act which defines “common law partner”: "common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
accompany his/her partner |
|
|
Decision A0026.06
Full Text of Decision A0026.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
Definition of common-law partner |
|
Summary:
The claimant left her employment to follow her common-law partner of some 10-11 months. Such reason is a just cause listed in subparagraph 29(c)(ii) of the Act. The issue is whether the claimant had established the existence of a common-law relationship prior to leaving. The Board and the Umpire did not consider the definition of "common-law partner" introduced to the EI Act in year 2000: "in relation to a claimant, means a person who is cohabiting with the claimant in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year". A relationship of 10-11 months does not allow for a finding that the relationship had a duration of "at least one year".
Decision 67497
Full Text of Decision 67497
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
Suspected of theft |
|
Summary:
It was not disputed that the claimant was falsely suspected of stealing money from the till. She was not accused; she was simply suspended during an investigation that confirmed that her cash balances were in order. At the very least, the claimant could have waited for the results of the investigation and gone back to work. The claimant had to show that the working conditions were such that she did not have any alternative but to leave . She did not provide any evidence to the effect that her work environment put her in such a situation.
Decision 63291A
Full Text of Decision 63291A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
The facts do not establish antagonism from the employer in the hostile sense but the evidence clearly shows that the employer manipulated the claimant and repeatedly reneged on promises of a promotion and wage increases. His employer's actions demonstrated bad faith. The Umpire concluded that when the claimant finally comprehended the employer's bad faith he had no reasonable alternative to leaving.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 41505
Full Text of Decision 41505
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
Quit his job because the situation between himself and the assistant erupted with the assistant threatening him with a crow bar and uttering threatening words. Umpire found that this could certainly be described as a stressful situation for which a medical certificate could not be obtained prior to the claimant quitting and that under these circumstances a medical certificate is not required.
Decision 40581
Full Text of Decision 40581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
Quit her job because she had difficulty working with the supervisor on the night shift. The manager offered her a transfer to the day shift but the day shift provided only a part time work which reduced her hours and earnings. Umpire concluded that the part time work to which claimant was relegated significantly modified the terms and conditions of her employment and having regard to the problem she encountered on the night shift claimant had no reasonable alternative other than to leave her job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Decision 39912
Full Text of Decision 39912
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
An antagonistic relationship may provide just cause where a claimant has been accused and criticized by an employer in a manner that constitutes deliberate provocation and malice designed to prompt the employee to walk out. Questionning a reported attendance for an appointment was not a demonstration of a lack of trust, and does not equate to just cause.
Decision 39893
Full Text of Decision 39893
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
Although being by-passed for a promotion and personality conflicts with her co-workers and supervisors may have, in the claimant's view been good reasons for leaving, they do not constitute just cause.
Decision A-0448.96
Full Text of Decision A-0448.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her employment stating that she was subjected to harassment and that there was a deterioration of employer-employee relations beyond repair. The Umpire found that the claimant was partly responsible for the antagonistic relations and refused to interfere with the BOR conclusion. The FCA determined however that the Umpire had not explicitly addressed the question of harassment and returned the matter back for determination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Decision 36792
Full Text of Decision 36792
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
Antagonism is a form of hostility or attitude which cannot be detected by what may have occured in one dispute. Where antagonism is prevalent it is more likely that a pattern of behaviour will emerge over a period of time from which antagonistic relations may be detected.
Decision A-0428.95
Full Text of Decision A-0428.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
Claimant's main argument centered around the fact that being a probationary employee and non-unionized he could not avail himself of any grievance procedure. Found that it is not for the Umpire to judge the fairness of the work place or prevailing conditions. Claimant's appeal dismissed by the FCA.
Decision 28033
Full Text of Decision 28033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Summary:
The Board considered that the conflict between the claimant and her supervisor could possibly have been resolved subject to an appropriate effort being made towards that end. That being so, quitting her job was clearly not a reasonable alternative in the eyes of the Board.
Decision A-0518.99
Full Text of Decision A-0518.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
contrary to law |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit his job because he was dissatisfied with his employment. According to claimant, he had a deal with his employer to put "laid-off" rather than "terminated" on the ROE but bookkeeper was honest and put "terminated". Claimant argues that the employer should have misrepresented the cause for the cessation of his employment. The BOR, the Umpire nor the FCA would consider such an argument. The FCA simply confirmed that there was sufficient evidence on file to support the BOR's decision that there were no just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 44784
Full Text of Decision 44784
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
contrary to law |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0518.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 28211
Full Text of Decision 28211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
contrary to law |
|
Summary:
The Commission suggests that 28(4)(k) is reserved for cases where there is a breach of law, as opposed to breaches contrary to ethics. I accept that something can be unethical without being illegal. However, the enumeration in 28(4) being not exhaustive, breaches of ethics can be considered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 24394
Full Text of Decision 24394
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
contrary to law |
|
Summary:
It appears clear to me that to order an employee to do electrical work which requires a licensed electrician and approval of the work thereafter by the proper authorities is certainly contrary to law. It was an error in law to find that this did not constitute just cause.
Decision 39770
Full Text of Decision 39770
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
"Just cause" is not "good reason" to do something that one feels must be done. Claimant had a good reason to want to go to France for a baptism or go to Portugal to take care of some paperworks but the employer could not grant the leave of absence. This, though, is not "just cause" to quit one's job. In order to have "just cause" to quit a job, claimant must show that he had no reasonable alternative but to quit his job.
Decision 37105
Full Text of Decision 37105
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Reason for quitting one's job must surpass merely good personal reasons which although understandable, do not meet the standard of just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 36997
Full Text of Decision 36997
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
It is well-established in the jurisprudence that good motive or good reason does not constitute "just cause" within the meaning of s.28 of the Act. Whether, in the opinion of the BOR, the claimant had good reason for failing to contact his employer to explain his prolonged asbsence from work is irrelevant to the determination whether the claimant had "just cause" for leaving his employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 29458
Full Text of Decision 29458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant was displaced and offered a re-assignment. Claimant refused and subsequently laid-off. Option exercised under the Collective Agreement. Claimant's separation from employment not to be characterized as voluntary.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Decision 28799
Full Text of Decision 28799
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Test "no reasonable alternative" discussed in the context of an employer who possibly misrepresented the nature of the job the employee was expected to do, and whether this is a more stringest test than the reasonable man test. Ss. 28(4) is, in fact, a codification of the pre-existing jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 28211
Full Text of Decision 28211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
The enumeration in 28(4) is not exhaustive. By using the words "having regard to all the circumstances" and "including any of the following circumstances", the legislator did not exclude other grounds which are similar, related, or corollary to the enumerated grounds.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
contrary to law |
|
Decision 25773
Full Text of Decision 25773
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Although TANGUAY and other early jurisprudence remain useful, and are frequently cited, ss. 28(4) has supplanted them: CUB 21817. Thus, when a claimant leaves his job, he must show that he comes under any of the enumerated grounds, or that "in all the circumstances", had "no reasonable alternative".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
financial difficulties |
Decision 25508
Full Text of Decision 25508
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
The Board has committed an error of law in the way that it appears to have interpreted ss. 28(4). It states that no provision for the reasons given for quitting exists as defined within the Act. This suggests to me that the Board considered the circumstances listed in 28(4) to be exhaustive.
Decision 25460
Full Text of Decision 25460
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence arising out of the previous wording of the Act was probably less demanding of claimants. The test of "having regard to all the circumstances... no reasonable alternative" in the Act as it now stands appears to narrow if anything the meaning of "just cause".
Ss. 28(4) quoted in part. There then are listed by way of example numerous circumstances, none of which apply here. One is thus left with the need to determine whether in the particular circumstances in this case the claimant "had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 25400
Full Text of Decision 25400
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
It is argued that the older jurisprudence has not been displaced by the recent amendments to 28(4). I am satisfied that the exclusive test of "just cause" is set out therein where it says that "just cause exists where, having regard to all the circumstances, claimant had no reasonable alternative".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Decision 25162
Full Text of Decision 25162
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
With the passing of the new s. 28, the Board does not have to wonder if it finds the claimant acted reasonably. It must rather verify if the claimant left his employment as a result of one of the listed circumstances and decide if he had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment.
Decision 21349A
Full Text of Decision 21349A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
In my opinion, the insured acted reasonably in leaving her job under those circumstances as she almost immediately found another job. However, that was not the "only" reasonable solution available to her. She could have waited until the date of her wedding.
Decision A-1210.92
Full Text of Decision A-1210.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Since the adoption of the new s. 28, the board does not have to consider whether it finds the claimant's conduct reasonable: what it must consider is whether he left his employment in any circumstances described and whether the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving immediately.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 21349
Full Text of Decision 21349
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1210.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 23413
Full Text of Decision 23413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Left a job about to terminate to take a course. The Commission submits that none of the 5 conditions enumerated in 28(4)(a) to (e) apply in this case. However, this does not end the matter. "Just cause" is not limited to the 5 enumerated conditions, but can include a range of other conditions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 20781
Full Text of Decision 20781
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0395.92
Decision A-0395.92
Full Text of Decision A-0395.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
It is clear that this list in ss. 28(4) was not intended to be exhaustive as the Commission is to have regard "to all the circumstances". Here, claimant left the far north to come and assist his sister who was having problems with her teenage daughter. The Board did not err in law. Upheld by FC.
Decision 22341
Full Text of Decision 22341
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
The test applied by the Board was whether the employment had become intolerable to the claimant. That test does not take full account of the definition of "just cause" as it now applies under 28(4) since 11-90.
Decision 21817
Full Text of Decision 21817
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
The proverbial "reasonable man" test of the earlier jurisprudence and the risk of "unemployment" test enunciated by TANGUAY must be regarded as being supplanted by the statutory test prescribed by s. 28(4). In my view, the appropriate test now is that mentioned therein.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 21681
Full Text of Decision 21681
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
Par. 28(4)(a) to (e) are neither exhaustive nor to be given equal importance. The provision is not there to fetter or circumscribe one's discretion. The expression "having regard to all the circumstances" is more generic and overrides the more particular criteria in (a) to (e).
It is not proper to look at any individual occurrence in isolation in order to determine whether just cause exists or not. When the statute says "having regard to all the circumstances", it imposes a consideration of the totality of the evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
foul language |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 18653
Full Text of Decision 18653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
It is my view that in its use of the 2 phrases, "good cause" and "just cause", Parliament did not intend that they be treated as synonymous even though in the abstract they may be difficult to distinguish. "Just cause" implies a somewhat more stringent standard to be met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
failure to attend |
leaving the course |
|
| courses of instruction or training |
good cause |
definition |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-1458.84
Full Text of Decision A-1458.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Summary:
According to the board, the insured acted reasonably in quitting. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding of expression just cause. Not synonymous with reason or ground. Winning the lottery or inheriting a fortune may be an excellent reason but it is not just cause.
Just cause means no more than "right" or "right and reasonable" in the context of the risk of unemployment. [p. 8-9]
Quoted with approval from CREWE: "Not sufficient to prove it was quite reasonable to leave. Reasonableness may be good cause but not necessarily just cause. Without just cause means without any just cause for throwing on to the UI fund the payment of UI." [p.7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
altruistic considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
monetary considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
rationale |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
a requirement |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 28478
Full Text of Decision 28478
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
good faith |
Summary:
Held that there exists a parallel between ss. 28(1) and para. 27(1)(b) and that the MOURA decision applies in the case at hand. The Board erred in law in deciding that the claimant acted in good faith, rather than deciding whether she had quit without just cause.
Decision A238.17
Full Text of Decision A238.17
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
|
Summary:
The SST-General Division found that the claimant was not entitled to receive EI benefits as she left her employment without just cause because there were reasonable alternatives open to her that she ought to have taken before resigning. The SST-Appeal Division was empowered to set the SST-General Division's decision aside only if it found the latter to have failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner without regard to the material before it. The SST-Appeal Division held that none of the forgoing could be said of the decision of the General Division. It was determined that the SST-Appeal Division's decision was reasonable . The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.
Decision A0469.11
Full Text of Decision A0469.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
|
Summary:
The claimant left her employment due to harassment by her employer. The Commission approved her application for EI benefits, finding she had just cause for leaving her employment. The employer appealed the Commission’s decision. The Umpire found the BOR’s decision to be reasonable. The Umpire found the BOR did not breach any principle of procedural fairness by refusing to admit irrelevant evidence produced by the employer. The FCA dismissed the employer’s application, finding that the emails were irrelevant to the issue before the BOR and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. l
Decision 27937
Full Text of Decision 27937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
document - privacy |
Summary:
It was essential to a fair hearing that not only the Board, but the appellant (employer) have access to the 30-page document which was prepared by claimant. ss. 79(1.1) does not deal with the admissibility of the 30-page document. Words "by the public" as found in 79(1.1) emphasized by Umpire.
Decision 74918
Full Text of Decision 74918
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The claimant decides to voluntarily leave her employment without looking for another job. She states that following her complaint of harassment to the employer, he made her life miserable until he finally told her to quit her job. The employer states that she quit following a meeting with her supervisor and the president of the company held in order to assess the adaptation problems she was encountering. The employer asked her to prepare a list of suggestions to improve her performance and eliminate frictions in the office with the drivers who were getting the best of her. She was also reminded of the resources and support systems in place to her for better duties' performance. Despite what had been agreed the claimant never again showed up for work. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 73334
Full Text of Decision 73334
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The issue in the present appeal is whether or not the claimant voluntarily left her employment without just cause. In her claim for benefits the claimant stated she had been dismissed but then gave the following explanation: ¿During my employment I faced sexual harassment and discrimination from the manager. The owner constructively dismissed me when he required that I sign a document that I had not experienced harassment as a condition of my continuing to work. When I refused to sign the document I was threatened with litigation and had to retain services of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Counsel. The Commission contacted the employer for its version of events, but not having received a reply by December 19, 2008, wrote to the employer to advice that it was approving the claimant's claim for benefit. An appeal to the Umpire was filed by the employer claiming that the Board had made an erroneous finding of fact. The employer then filed a series of documents which had never been placed before the Board of Referees and therefore will not be considered in the present appeal. The employer's appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.
Decision 64723
Full Text of Decision 64723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The claimant's employment involved making telephone calls for a collection service. He was subjected to harassing language in the form of abusive racial comments from some of the clients - this was stressful and affecting his family life. The Judge stated that the claimant could have discussed his concerns with his employer but he chose to leave instead. He concluded that there was no evidence to show that the stress suffered by the claimant from the harassment at work had become so unbearable as to leave him with no choice but to quit when he did.
Decision A-0472.03
Full Text of Decision A-0472.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The claimant was disqualified for leaving her employment, claiming she was harassed. The Court stated that, under subsection 49(2) of the Act, the benefit of the doubt would only apply in favour of a claimant, where the evidence on each side is equally balanced. The Court found that this rule of evidence cannot apply as it was clear there were reasonable alternatives open to the claimant before leaving her employment.
Decision 58193
Full Text of Decision 58193
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0472.03
Decision A-0448.96
Full Text of Decision A-0448.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
Claimant left her employment stating that she was subjected to harassment and that there was a deterioration of employer-employee relations beyond repair. The Umpire found that the claimant was partly responsible for the antagonistic relations and refused to interfere with the BOR conclusion. The FCA determined however that the Umpire had not explicitly addressed the question of harassment and returned the matter back for determination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Decision 31992
Full Text of Decision 31992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The BOR erred when it concluded that falsely accusing an employee of theft did not amount to harassment. Surely making an irritating/annoying comment which is known to be false amounts to harassment within the meaning of the U.I. Act.
Decision 26973
Full Text of Decision 26973
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0133.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision A-0133.95
Full Text of Decision A-0133.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The claimant's attorney argued that harassment of a sexual nature was part of the "general situation" and justified her departure. However, the claimant hastened to add that she couldn't say that there "was harassment as such". Argument rejected. The FCA agrees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Decision 24365A
Full Text of Decision 24365A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The question the Board had to address was not whether claimant pursued all avenues open to her, but rather whether pursuing avenues open to her was a reasonable alternative to leaving. It had a duty to explain why a further pursuit of avenues under the policy were reasonable alternatives to leaving.
I was invited to defer making a decision until claimant's appeal to Human Rights had been decided. Indeed, in the final analysis, the question is whether claimant was or was not sexually or otherwise harassed. I think it would constitute a declining of jurisdiction by an Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 25005
Full Text of Decision 25005
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The Commission raises another issue: whether sexual harassment by clients (in the case of a taxi driver) and not the employer is contemplated under para. 28(4)(a). I am not satisfied that I want to deal with the issue raised by the Commission which is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal.
Decision 22020
Full Text of Decision 22020
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
Harassment under 28(4)(a) must be constituted by an act or acts of the employer which are directed to the employee personally. Conditions which affect all employees, and references to possible consequences under the UI Act, whether right or wrong, do not constitute harassment by the employer.
Decision 21676
Full Text of Decision 21676
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
Working for an unreasonable boss is not as per a long line of jurisprudence just cause. However new 28(4)(a) evidently is not limited to sexual harassment. Here the immediate employer went far beyond being unpleasant or difficult to work with and had definitely harassed her.
Decision 76263
Full Text of Decision 76263
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
hasty leaving |
|
Summary:
The claimant left her employment one week after a new manager was hired because of disagreements concerning her work. “The Board finds that he Claimant had over the past year worked with three managers, the first two of which were pleasant to work with and had entrusted her with responsibilities. The new manager, in his first position as manager and being young, likely felt that he had to be tough with employees and did not have the communication skills that the previous managers had. The Claimant took offense at the new manager’s remarks about how she was recording her time and that as a reaction she walked off the job. The Board finds that the Claimant although in her mind she had good cause for leaving, it does not amount to just cause. The appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.
Decision 76349
Full Text of Decision 76349
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
hasty leaving |
|
Summary:
The claimant left his job because of a shift change. He wanted an increase in pay because of the change which was refused by the employer. The claimant states he left his position because the shift change which would result in additional duties. The employer confirmed the claimant had been offered a shift change with an end time of 8:00 PM rather than 5:00 PM with duties remaining the same but the claimant would be working alone after 3:00 PM. The claimant was offered this change of shift because the claimant had difficulty in coming to work by 9:00 AM and would show up late on a regular basis. The employer could not justify increasing the wage. The Board finds that the claimant voluntarily lost his employment. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 76226
Full Text of Decision 76226
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
hasty leaving |
|
Summary:
The claimant was hired as a residential manager at a salary to be paid monthly. The employer also rented an apartment to the claimant for which the monthly rental was equal to her monthly salary. It was agreed that if she did not pay the rent it would be deducted from her salary. Therefore, the claimant did not receive an actual pay cheque. While working under this arrangement the claimant was also in receipt of E. I. benefits and, since she did not receive any dollars in her hands, she did not report any earnings. The Commission was made aware of the salary being paid to her resulting in an overpayment. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
babysitting problems |
|
Decision 55217
Full Text of Decision 55217
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
hasty leaving |
|
Summary:
Claimant's starting working hour changed from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Quit her job in July saying that she would have had to quit her employment at the start of the school year to care for her children as there was no one to supervise them until 8:45 a.m. when they were going to school. Found that claimant had not made a suitable effort to work out a temporary solution with her employer and that there was no urgency as the start of the school year was still not imminent.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
Decision 42723
Full Text of Decision 42723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
hasty leaving |
|
Summary:
Clmt quit her job to better herself with further studies. When her student loan was refused, she could not go back to her previous job because it had already been filled. Umpire ruled that clmt made a personal decision to terminate her employment to return to school. A prudent person whould have waited until the financial arrangements were confirmed before leaving her job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 26761
Full Text of Decision 26761
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
hasty leaving |
|
Summary:
It is unreasonable to expect that in a matter of hours the changes that he had suggested and which appeared to have been favourably received, at least to the point of investigation, be put into effect.
Decision 57053
Full Text of Decision 57053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job in Winnipeg to be with her fiance elsewhere in Manitoba. She acknowledged that she and her fiance had not been living in a common-law relationship and that they were planning to be married in September of 2002, in excess of 10 months after she left her employment. BOR allowed the claimant's appeal but the Umpire held that the "anticipated marriage" in this case was not anticipated for almost 11 months. This cannot be called imminently. Commission appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 45471
Full Text of Decision 45471
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Summary:
Claimant left job in April 98 in order to move to live with her fiancé. They planned to marry in December 98. She had been commuting on weekends and holidays for over 11 months. The BOR found that claimant meets the definition of common-law relationship and that the VL was justified. The Umpire refused to interfere. The Commission did not appeal the case to the FCA since the notion of "no other reasonable alternative" was not covered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 28188
Full Text of Decision 28188
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Summary:
I understand that it is the Commission's policy to recognize application of para. 28(4)(b) to a relocation prior to a pending marriage so long as the separation from employment takes place in reasonable proximity to the claimant's wedding day. In this case it occurred over 3 months in advance.
Decision 27882
Full Text of Decision 27882
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Summary:
Claimant planned to move to a new location to get married in 7 weeks' time. She listed her house for sale but the purchaser insisted on immediate possession. She found it in her interests not to decline the offer. The reasons for leaving were strictly personal and do not constitute just cause.
Decision 27800
Full Text of Decision 27800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Summary:
The Commission's position has always been that if the marriage is reasonably imminent, just cause for leaving in order to move to a new geographical location will be found. The Commission does not demand that just cause exist only when an individual leaves employment the day after the marriage.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
Decision 63291A
Full Text of Decision 63291A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
The employer manipulated the claimant and repeatedly reneged on promises of a promotion and wage increases. The Umpire concluded that when the claimant finally comprehended the employer's bad faith he had no reasonable alternative to leaving.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
Decision A-0260.04
Full Text of Decision A-0260.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
The Court agreed with the BOR that the claimant had not established that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment.
Decision 55300
Full Text of Decision 55300
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a permanent employment and her spouse was unemployed. Claimant left her job in Ontario to accompany her spouse who was going to a seasonal employment (10-week duration) in New-Brunswick. No indication that the move would be permanent: the possibility was considered but no decision had been made. In fact, they did move back to Ontario. Held that at the time of the move, the claimant was the only spouse who was employed and providing financial support for the couple. Claimant should not have jeopardized that without the firm indication that there was no alternative to her moving at that time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 55116
Full Text of Decision 55116
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
After her 18 year old son had served his community sentence, claimant elected to move from Winnipeg to Vancouver in order that he not associate with undesirable friends. The Commission found that she voluntarily left her employment without just cause. Held by Umpire that, absent any effort at finding employment before leaving or deliberating on alternatives such as taking a leave of absence, the claimant had made a personal choice that did not constitute just cause under the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
Decision A-0041.02
Full Text of Decision A-0041.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his job to commence an 8 week training course. Prior to leaving his employment, the claimant made arrangements for alternate employment effective upon completing this training course. The FCA held that reasonableness in leaving one's job is insufficient just cause; there must be no reasonable alternative to leaving one's employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
not definite |
|
Decision 53102
Full Text of Decision 53102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
No spousal relationship of any kind existed prior to the claimant leaving her employment. They had in fact decided to begin such a relationship. To accept that a decision to relocate to begin cohabitation with a person with whom a romantic relationship has begun would be to unreasonably stretch the notion of an obligation to accompany a spouse.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 49475
Full Text of Decision 49475
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit her job in Newfoundland because she was only making the minimum wage and she had been offered a free ride to Alberta to improve herself. BOR allowed the appeal on the basis that leaving a minimum wage job to seek a better paying position was just cause for quitting. Error in law by the BOR stated the Umpire. While it is understandable, it does not give the claimant the right to employment insurance benefits. In order to leave one's job for just cause one must show that there is no reasonable alternative to quitting.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 49011
Full Text of Decision 49011
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit to move to Brampton to be with fiancée. No common law relationship established prior to moving. No children involved and no proposed marriage date until 11 months later. BOR was of the view that the situation was similar to a person moving to get married and allowed the appeal. In reference to Tanguay (A-1458.84), the Umpire found that claimant had not exhausted all reasonable alternatives available to her prior to leaving her employment. Commission's appeal was allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 43465
Full Text of Decision 43465
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Quit his job on a mobile oil rig to live closer to his family. His working schedule entailed working for 3 weeks and a week off. It was to hard on the family, therefore, he had no reasonable alternatives than to quit his job. Umpire doesn't accept that he did not seek employment closer to home before quitting. His working schedule allowed it. Claimant being at home for a week every three weeks, it would have been possible for him to search for a job. Under the circumstances, he did not have just cause to leave his job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
Decision 41607
Full Text of Decision 41607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
BOR should have associated clmt's living conditions where there were cultural differences and a lack of social interaction and the entire environment tied to his employment in an isolated community. The reasonable alternatives available to him did not have much chance for success.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 40783
Full Text of Decision 40783
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit because the work she was doing did not reflect the job description she had been given when she was hired. Umpire found that an employee who leaves his employment without trying to remedy a situation that he finds unpleasant may be deemed not to have provided just cause for his separation. Umpire added that even if a claimant thinks that he is being under-utilized in the duties he performs, that fact does not make his separation the only reasonable solution.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 40581
Full Text of Decision 40581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Quit her job because she had difficulty working with the supervisor on the night shift. The manager offered her a transfer to the day shift but the day shift provided only a part time work which reduced her hours and earnings. Umpire concluded that the part time work to which claimant was relegated significantly modified the terms and conditions of her employment and having regard to the problem she encountered on the night shift claimant had no reasonable alternative other than to leave her job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Decision 39924
Full Text of Decision 39924
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant had difficulties with certain aspects of her employment. Given that she made no effort to resolve these difficulties with her employer, she did not meet the test of "no other reasonable alternative".
Decision 39678
Full Text of Decision 39678
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Subsection 28(4) exempts claimants from the strict enforcement of 28(1) if they can show that they had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment. Work that constitutes a danger to health or safety is a valid exemption. However, everything must be examined in context and this must be the only reasonable alternative in their case. This evidence must be objective, unemotional and not subjective; there must be an objective conclusion based on actual unapprehended facts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 37199A
Full Text of Decision 37199A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Quit her job because claimant could not deal physically and mentally with the conditions of employment. The hours were just too long, the breaks were not sufficient, the stress of the job was great and the fact that she suffered from frostbite as a result of one aspect of her job indicated clearly that there were no reasonable alternatives for her other than quitting her job. By doing so she quit her job with just cause under the Act.
Decision 39547
Full Text of Decision 39547
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his employment after a reduction in salary of just over 30%. Umpire ruled that if the claimant had remained in his old job with reduced income, he would at least have had a job and would have been able to take the necessary time to find other insurable employment. He preferred to receive UI benefits, which gave him less income, even with a reduced salary. Umpire found that this solution was not reasonable, and even more obviously was not the reasonable solution as defined by the legislation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision A-0875.96
Full Text of Decision A-0875.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. **The Act provides some understanding for the meaning of the phrase "just cause" for voluntarily leaving an employment so as to determine if "the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment". An examination of the enumerated circumstances [ss.28(4)] indicate situations occurring independently from the will or participation of the claimant and beyond his control. Admittedly, the applicant in the case at bar had no other reasonable alternative but to leave his employment. But the reason of his leaving was the loss of his driving licence for which he was responsible, having been found guilty of a drinking and driving offence. This was not a "just cause".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
| misconduct |
misconduct prior to employment |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 37586
Full Text of Decision 37586
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant was faced with the alternatives of performing a job which offended his sense of honesty, or confronting the employer and refusing to perform his job or quitting. Umpire ruled that claimants are not required to remain in employment which offends their ethical values and his satisfied that in this case the claimant had no resonable alternative but to leave and therefore met the test of just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
ethical considerations |
|
Decision 35229
Full Text of Decision 35229
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Found that claimant had just cause for quitting due to economic factors. The cost of child care and the cost of transportation, when balanced against the real income to be derived from the employment, had reached a point at which it was not realistically economic for claimant to continue working.
Decision 34385
Full Text of Decision 34385
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
The Umpire found that it was not a case where the claimant did not explore all possibilities of alternative transportation and living accomodations. It is a case where her living accomodations situation changed and the claimant left her job because she found it uneconomic to continue working.
Decision 29959
Full Text of Decision 29959
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0734.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Decision A-0734.95
Full Text of Decision A-0734.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job in B.C. and returned to NFLD to care for her father who had suffered a stroke. FCA satisfied that Umpire did not neglect the opening words of ss.28(4), including the requirement that the respondent had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment in British Columbia.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Decision 28343
Full Text of Decision 28343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0466.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision A-0466.95
Full Text of Decision A-0466.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
When a single person, or the only working spouse in a marriage, voluntarily leaves employment, the reasonable alternative factor must be a major consideration in determining the issue of just cause. Umpire not concerned whether decision to move taken byboth spouses or not. Confirmed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 30158A
Full Text of Decision 30158A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Ongoing jurisprudence developed since the FCA decision in Tanguay (A-1458-84) requires that any grounds found pursuant to s. 28(4) be subjected to the following task: was departure the only reasonable solution? Beneficiary did not request leave of absence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Decision 27924
Full Text of Decision 27924
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0450.95
Decision A-0450.95
Full Text of Decision A-0450.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
The BOR found a lack of "just cause" because there was "no urgency or necessity". Held by the FCA that the test set out by the BOR was more exigent than the language of the Act which requires only that "in all the circumstances... the claimant had no reasonable alternative..."
Decision 28803
Full Text of Decision 28803
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Employer consistently manipulated accounting so that claimant was not paid all his commissions. I do not see how it can be suggested that it is a reasonable alternative to require an employee to remain with an employer who is cheating him until he can find alternative employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
financial difficulties |
Decision 28799
Full Text of Decision 28799
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Test "no reasonable alternative" discussed in the context of an employer who possibly misrepresented the nature of the job the employee was expected to do, and whether this is a more stringest test than the reasonable man test. Ss. 28(4) is, in fact, a codification of the pre-existing jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 25917
Full Text of Decision 25917
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
The claimant may well have had good reason for quitting his employment, and on the material before me I conclude he had, but without further efforts to improve the situation between himself and his supervisor, I am in agreement with the Board that he did not have just cause.
He did not seek alternative employment before leaving but, given the remote location of the camp, I do not regard this as a significant factor. His evidence was that he certainly sought alternative employment immediately upon leaving and arriving at a location where a job search was feasible.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 24013
Full Text of Decision 24013
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0115.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0115.94
Full Text of Decision A-0115.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
We note that the Board made an incorrect statement with regard to the legal test for "just cause", stating that the Board must be concerned that the claimant had "absolutely no alternative" but to leave his job instead of "no reasonable alternative" to leaving the employment as provided in 28(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 73848
Full Text of Decision 73848
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
babysitting problems |
|
Decision 33050
Full Text of Decision 33050
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
babysitting problems |
|
Decision 29980
Full Text of Decision 29980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision A-0479.94
Full Text of Decision A-0479.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
sickness defined |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 25001
Full Text of Decision 25001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0479.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
sickness defined |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 28825
Full Text of Decision 28825
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 27469
Full Text of Decision 27469
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 24160
Full Text of Decision 24160
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Decision 23848
Full Text of Decision 23848
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Decision 21401
Full Text of Decision 21401
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 41523
Full Text of Decision 41523
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his job in B.C. to return to Mtl. to care for his grandmother. Umpire stated that his presence was not immediately required as his mother was already caring for the grandmother. He was not a primary supplier of care. Umpire concluded that the claimant may have made his decision for personal reasons, which do not constitute just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
illness in family |
|
Decision 35413
Full Text of Decision 35413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Being away from home for 18 years, claimant quit job in B.C. to return in NFLD to be with his ailing father. No medical evidence on file to indicate that his presence was required. Also evidence shows that a mother, brother and sister were already in the area. Clear it was a personal decision.
Decision 29959
Full Text of Decision 29959
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0734.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision A-0734.95
Full Text of Decision A-0734.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job in B.C. and returned to NFLD to care for her father who had suffered a stroke. Clear in her mind and in any reasonable interpretation of the evidence it was necessary for her to care for her father, which brought her within S.28(4)(e)(Act). Umpire's finding not disturbed by FCA
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 30158A
Full Text of Decision 30158A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Beneficiary leaves to look after and arrange for the sale of his father's business, because his father is incurably ill. Departure not justified. We cannot suggest that s. 28(4)(e) of the Act can be interpreted to mean something other than the administration of personal care. Erroneous interpretation of Act by board of appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 30187
Full Text of Decision 30187
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit job in Man. to move in Alb. to take care of his ill mother. BOR found no urgent call from family or doctor to urge claimant to quit. Umpire found an error in law to say that "urgency" no longer the relevant test. According to file, there was an other alternative. Appeal filed to FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 29760
Full Text of Decision 29760
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job in B.C. to return to N.B. to take care for her severely ill mother. The claimant is a licensed nurse, single and only member of the family able to assume responsibility for her mother's care. Also, not possible for her to conduct an effective job search in N.B. before leaving.
Decision 29330
Full Text of Decision 29330
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Para. 28(4)(e) applied. Claimant quit his job in a distant province to take care of his mother left isolated after the death of his father. Her health condition was such that she needed to be looked after and he explained why his brothers and sister were not in a position to look after their mother.
Decision 27512
Full Text of Decision 27512
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Teacher; left on 9-4-91 to care for his mother who was terminally ill: leave not requested. Filed for benefits: 6-14-91. Mother died: 1-7-91. His particular situation justified his leaving. Interpretation of "no reasonnable alternative" too limited.
Decision 27205
Full Text of Decision 27205
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Left his employment in another province and had reasonable assurance he could find employment. He did have an obligation to care for a member of the immediate family (his mother). Any loving son would have felt obligated to relieve his younger brother in caring for a desperately ill mother.
Decision 26314
Full Text of Decision 26314
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
As per Indian tradition, the care of her mother-in-law fell to her in her case. Was refused leave of absence in 6-93 to go to India. Immediate family in Black's Law Dictionary does not include a mother-in-law. [Note: mother-in-law now included in ss. 54(1.1) added 16-6-94 for a different purpose.]
Decision 25558
Full Text of Decision 25558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Amongst reasons given for leaving Calgary, claimant stated that it was important to be close to her brother for medical reasons. Her brother, although a close family member, is not an immediate family member. No legal duty to care for him. [Note: covered in ss. 54(1.1) for another purpose.]
Decision 25420
Full Text of Decision 25420
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
The CEIC argued that a daughter-in-law is not a child under 28(4)(e). Claimant's presence in Vancouver was certainly not urgent as 3 months elapsed before she moved. No medical evidence. Just cause not shown failing other employment. [Note: new ss. 54(1.1) includes such person for another purpose.]
Decision 24092
Full Text of Decision 24092
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for family member |
|
Summary:
Held that claimant had just cause for leaving to take care of her spouse. This is specifically covered in para. 28(4)(e) "obligation to care for a child or a member of the family". The speculations of the Board that there are various alternatives she could have adopted do not seem to be justified.
Decision 74580
Full Text of Decision 74580
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant worked for X Québec Inc. from October 19, 2005 to June 10, 2009, when he voluntarily left his employment. According to the claimant, he left his employment to obtain his competency card, which would allow him to work in the construction field. He still has to take a French test and the General Development Test (GDT). According to the Commission, the claimant did not have a guarantee of other employment when he voluntarily left his job. The fact that he started another job eight weeks later does not constitute just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment. The Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision A0104.07
Full Text of Decision A0104.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant had quit his job at a call centre to pursue employment in his field, having a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering. He also argued that the job had been stressful due to customers who degraded him because of his accent and racial origin, that he had to travel to Pakistan for family reasons and that he had a hearing problem in one ear that made his work using a telephone headset difficult. The Court said that the Umpire had applied the wrong test - reasonableness may be "good cause" but it is not "just cause". The current scheme does not allow a claimant to leave their job with the sole view of improving their situation in the market place. While the claimant was successful in finding an engineering job shortly after leaving, it cannot be said that he knew what future employment he would have or the identify of his future employer and as such just cause on the basis provided in subparagraph 29(c)(vi) of the EI Act has not been established. None of the other reasons was accepted by the BOR or the Umpire as the basis for the claimant's decision to leave - the Court was not persuaded that there was any reason to interfere with their findings on that point.
Decision A0021.07
Full Text of Decision A0021.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant quit two jobs in Montreal, alleging difficulty in learning French, to move to Toronto where he thought he had better prospects of finding employment in line with a recently obtained diploma. The Court said that the Umpire did not identify the appropriate standard of review, which in a case of voluntary leaving is a question of mixed fact and law. The Court went on to reiterate a number or principles. Despite the myriad of examples provided at section 29(c) of the Act of what would constitute just cause, the primary question remains the same: did the claimant have no reasonable alternative to leaving. Leaving to improve one's position in the marketplace does not constitute just cause. There is no indication that the Board considered the most obvious reasonable alternative - searching for work in Toronto while working in Montreal instead of moving immediately. Moreover, suitability of employment cannot be just cause for leaving.
Decision A0339.06
Full Text of Decision A0339.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant, an apprentice electrician, quit his job as a general labourer with a temporary staffing agency contending that he could not continue to work while at the same time be available for work through his union hiring hall. The Umpire was of the view that the BOR was clearly cognizant of the legal test for voluntary leaving - no reasonable alternative to voluntarily leaving - and that it did effectively apply the legal test to the facts of the case in finding that the claimant was not able to be available for employment in his chosen field if he remained employed by the staffing agency. The Court said it was not persuaded that the Umpire made a reviewable error in declining to reverse the decision of the BOR. The Board's reasons indicate that they correctly understood the relevant legal principles and reached a conclusion that was reasonably open to them on the record. (The Commission considers this decision is limited to the particular facts of the case)
Decision 67481
Full Text of Decision 67481
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant voluntarily left his employment at the Privy Council Office in order to take advantage of the potential of a priority appointment in the federal Public Service. The claimant did not succeed in finding a job.
Decision 67526
Full Text of Decision 67526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Although the claimant in leaving New Brunswick did get short term employment in Sarnia Ontario later in the year there is no evidence in the record that he had previously obtained employment in other regions through the union hall process. There was no offer from a prospective employer or any other contact with a potential employer before the claimant left for Sarnia. The Board's conclusion that the claimant had reasonnable assurance of other employment in the immediate future was not reasonable having regard to the evidence in the record.
Decision 66815
Full Text of Decision 66815
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant quit her position which was a full time job, although not a permanent one. She had been working there for several years. The question is whether the claimant had sufficient assurance of a full time position as a substitute teacher when she quit. The evidence points to a part-time position which is an on-call position when needed.
Decision A-0346.03
Full Text of Decision A-0346.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant quit his part-time job without just cause and was laid-off from his full-time job a few weeks later. The Court allowed the appeal saying the claimant had reasons to believe that his full-time employment would continue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0123.03
Full Text of Decision A-0123.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Without contacting the new employer, the claimant left his employment for possible other employment a friend told him he could get. In referring to the specific legal standard of "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future", the Court found that there was no "assurance" or "employment", as there was no offer by the prospective employer, no contact between that employer and the claimant and the latter had no idea what the work or the remuneration would be.
Decision 57668
Full Text of Decision 57668
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0346.03
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 |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The Court found that an offer of employment conditional upon completion of a training course did not meet the criteria of reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 56049
Full Text of Decision 56049
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant left a full-time job to take what she knew to be "temporary" employment with Bombardier, a firm she deemed to be more desirable as having more to offer in the long-run in terms of both pay and room for advancement. Held that even though the new position pay was considerably more, the statement "get your foot in the door" is not a reasonable assurance of full-time employment. Her previous position was secure. No just cause proven.
Decision 56252
Full Text of Decision 56252
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0123.03
Decision 53575
Full Text of Decision 53575
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
A person may have just cause to leave a job if he or she has reasonable assurance of finding other employment. Simply leaving a job in the hope of finding something better elsewhere is not enough.
Decision 51838
Full Text of Decision 51838
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant was working 20 hours per week and earning $6/hr. Being unable to provide for his family, claimant quit his job in Newfoundland to look for work in B.C. to seek a better job with higher wages. Held that his decision may have been reasonable but was not justified under the Act. The fact is that while he was working, even only making $6/hr for 20 hours per week, he was making $120 whereas now he is making nothing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 47940
Full Text of Decision 47940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant was working as a bar tender when his father, who had run a barber shop for many years, died. Agreement amongst the family that if claimant became a barber he would have the equipment and the stand. Claimant quit his job and took a barbering course. The BOR stated that the claimant had reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future and that he had quit with just cause. Error in law ruled the Umpire. The claimant's action was immediate but the employment itself required the wait of a period of 24 weeks during the training.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 43296
Full Text of Decision 43296
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that, based on the evidence, when the claimant quit his job, he did not have "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future." On the contrary, he admitted that he did not have any job prospects or promises of employment. He alleged that he was optimistic about finding a job in construction. That is not sufficient to enable a claimant to invoke paragraph 29(c)(vi) of the EIA.
Decision 42538
Full Text of Decision 42538
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
BOR erred in applying a test to show lack of just cause which is more stringent than the statutory test of "reasonable assurance". Statute simply requires clmt to show that he had "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
not definite |
|
Decision 39662
Full Text of Decision 39662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
According to the case law, it is not necessary that a claimant be absolutely certain of finding other employment, but it is important that an employer have actually promised employment to the claimant or given him reasonable assurance of such employment. The mere fact of being informed of opportunities and of having good hope of finding other employment is not sufficient to justify voluntary separation.
Decision A-0765.96
Full Text of Decision A-0765.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant disqualified for having voluntarily left her job without just cause. The BOR dismissed the claimant's appeal since she had not obtained any other employment nor had a reasonable assurance of other employment. Both the Umpire and the FCA summarily dismissed the claimant's appeal.
Decision A-0634.96
Full Text of Decision A-0634.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant disqualified for having left her employment to move to another region. Before the Umpire, claimed to have been assured of another job before quitting. According to the Umpire, it was a personal decision; there was no concrete assurance of another job. Appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
Decision A-0175.96
Full Text of Decision A-0175.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit lengthy employment when the severance pay provisions of her collective agreement were threatened by current negotiations. While her resignation was understandable, it was precipitous and the FCA ruled that the claimant had not established "just cause" under s.28 of the Act as she had no reasonable assurance of another employment in the near future or experienced "undue" pressure by the employer to quit.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
monetary considerations |
|
Decision A-0599.95
Full Text of Decision A-0599.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Summary:
It cannot be said at the time he resigned his employment on the expectation that he had been admitted to medical school that the applicant has a "reasonable assurance of other employment". Reference made to Tanguay (A-1458-84).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Decision A0444.08
Full Text of Decision A0444.08
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Decision A0518.08
Full Text of Decision A0518.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Summary:
The claimant had a permanent part-time job as a gas station attendant. He was paid $8 an hour for 15 to 20 hours of work per week. He left that job for another seasonal job in construction that guaranteed him 150 hours of work at $18.60 per hour. During his work term at his new job, he accumulated 184 hours of insurable employment between October 8 and November 23, 2007. The Board of Referees concluded that the claimant was justified in leaving his job to accept another one in a field where he could improve his financial situation. According to the FCA, in the Langlois case, reasonable assurance of another job in the immediate future must be assessed in relation to all the circumstances surrounding the claimant's departure. In the case of a seasonal job, the moment at which the voluntary leave occurs and the duration of the seasonal job are the most important circumstances to consider in determining whether the leave was a reasonable solution and therefore justified. This decision reaffirms the fact that a worker's desire to improve his/her financial situation cannot be accepted as a justification for voluntarily leaving the original job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Decision 70481
Full Text of Decision 70481
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Summary:
The claimant quit her permanent employment to start a seasonal job. The Umpire ruled that the Board of Referees confused the concepts of "legitimacy" and "only reasonable alternative" when it determined that voluntarily leaving her employment constituted the claimant's only reasonable alternative because she had a reasonable assurance of other employment in the immediate future. The Board failed to take into account the consequences of the claimant's decision to leave her regular employment for seasonal employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Decision A0075.07
Full Text of Decision A0075.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Summary:
This case involves a claimant who quit indeterminate permanent employment in August for seasonal permanent employment at much higher wages expecting to last until December. The claimant applied for benefit when laid off in October. The Court said that in such a case the timing of the voluntary leaving and the expected duration of the seasonal employment are the most important circumstances to consider in determining whether the leaving was a reasonable alternative. Leaving to take seasonal employment when the work season is ending and with no expectation that the requalification conditions of section 30 of the EI Act could be met creates an unjustified certainty of unemployment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
Seasonal Employment |
Decision A0381.10
Full Text of Decision A0381.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
overlooked for promotion |
|
Summary:
The claimant was an operator at a daycare centre. She went on vacation and before she returned, she received a call from her supervisor who advised that another person with less experience was taking over as "operations manager". The claimant left her employment without seeking a transfer in another daycare and without seeking alternative employment. According to the FCA, the question of "just cause" for leaving employment requires an examination of "whether having regard to all the circumstances, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment". The FCA reiterated the principle that there is an obligation on claimants, in most cases, to attempt to resolve workplace conflicts with their employer, or to demonstrate efforts to seek alternative employment before taking a unilateral decision to quit a job.
Decision 63883
Full Text of Decision 63883
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
overlooked for promotion |
|
Summary:
The Umpire stated that being overlooked for a promotion does not constitute just cause for leaving one's employment. A claimant must show there was no reasonable alternative to doing so.
Decision 32022A
Full Text of Decision 32022A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
Claimant left a permanent teaching job in order to seek a temporary replacement position. Board allowed claimant's appeal under par.28(4)(n) of UI Act. Held by Umpire that Board clearly erred in law in deciding that the actions taken by the claimant were justified under that provision.
Decision A-0037.96
Full Text of Decision A-0037.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit job to attend University. Because the claimant had left his employment only after a great deal of planning and that his plans to attend school -- through no fault of his own -- fell through, Umpire stated that the situation in which the claimant found himself was akin to leaving employment with the reasonable assurance of other employment in the immediate future and dismissed the Commission's appeal.**Referring to its decision in Furey (A-819-95), the FCA reiterated that the circumstances which existed at the time the claimant left his job are those which are relevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision A-0599.95
Full Text of Decision A-0599.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
It cannot be said that this case falls within the language "such other reasonable circumstances as prescribed" because none have been prescribed by regulations adopted by the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
Decision 32044
Full Text of Decision 32044
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
Reliance by the BOR on s.28(4)n) is an error in law. That provision does not confer a discretion upon the Commission to prescribe reasonable circumstances. I interpret that provision to mean such other reasonable circumstances as may be prescribed by Reg. as empowered by the U.I. Act.
Decision 26046
Full Text of Decision 26046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0691.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
leave or holidays |
|
Decision A-0691.94
Full Text of Decision A-0691.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
The event that led to the disqualification occurred on 14-8-92 when she left her employment. Yet, para. 28(4)(n) only came into effect on 3-4-93. In addition, the phrase "no reasonable circumstance" alluded to in para. 28(4)(n) had not yet been prescribed by regulation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
leave or holidays |
|
Decision 27065
Full Text of Decision 27065
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
In reviewing the evidence, the claimant clearly does not fall within any of the specific subsections of 28(4) of the Act. The question then is whether or not all of the surrounding circumstances are sufficient as to give her the benefit of subsection (n).
Decision 25120
Full Text of Decision 25120
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
reasonable circumstance as prescribed |
|
Summary:
NOTE: The FCA, in rendering its decision in Greg Stevens (A-599-95, CUB 28834), has said that to rely on the expression "such other reasonable circumstances as prescribed" was not possible because none had been prescribed by regulations adopted by the Commission.
In the context of a statute, the word "prescribed" is usually associated with either the statute itself or with the regulations. The subsection does not read "such other reasonable circumstances as are in the discretion of the Commission". There is no discretion to be exercised by the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
Decision 28567
Full Text of Decision 28567
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
refusal to pay overtime |
|
Summary:
Even assuming that refusal to pay for overtime work was one of the conditions upon which she relied, there was no evidence that she sought relief from the Canada Labour Board before leaving her employment.
Decision 76279
Full Text of Decision 76279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
The claimant, who had been in sanitation with the company for a period of time was moved from sanitation to night packaging. These duties were different because he had to switch to a different department. He stated that both the salary and the hours were less and he felt he would get a decrease of $2.00 per hour, but in fact, it was $1.25. The claimant lost his job because he was bumped from it by another employee under the collective agreement. Night packaging was his only alternative, even though he was not trained in that department. The claimant did not try his new position; he was annoyed and decided to quit. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Decision A-0811.99
Full Text of Decision A-0811.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
The decision of the BOR, upheld by the Umpire, found that that claimant had voluntarily left his employment, but at the same time, recognized that this departure was the result of a misunderstanding. The FCA decided that neither the BOR nor the Umpire asked whether the claimant had actually left his employment and, if so, whether the termination of employment was voluntary. Case returned to the BOR for re-determination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
Decision 46426
Full Text of Decision 46426
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0811.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
Decision 39752
Full Text of Decision 39752
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
Employed as a truck driver. The offer to permit claimant to work in town loading and delivering loads or to be allowed to go on the spare board is clearly a significant change in work duties within the provision of section 28(4)(i).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 36789
Full Text of Decision 36789
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
The key word in par. 28(4)i) is "significant". A mere change of work duties will not trigger the application of that section. Significant here means something of import - something above the normal. The change imposed upon the claimant from a state of no physical work to heavy manual labour with the option of having that labour performed at his expense is a change of work of import and is a manifestation of change beyond the normal.
Decision 36391
Full Text of Decision 36391
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
Claimant demoted with hours reduced from full time to 14 hours per week. It was found that rather than dismiss the claimant, the employer had decided to marginalize her position. The claimant had no choice but to quit under the circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 30652
Full Text of Decision 30652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
Claimant employed as a storekeeper/messman for C.P.Rail for 11 years; sharing f/t position with a co-worker, each on a p/t basis. Position reclassified to be performed by 1 on a f/t basis and primarily janitorial duties. Employer unilaterally and fundamentally changed the conditions of employment.
Decision 29458
Full Text of Decision 29458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
Claimant bumped by senior employee. Exercising the option under Collective Agreement, re-assignment declined and claimant laid-off. Not to be characterized as vol. Not intended that Act should override provisions of an agreement between employer/employee
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 28360
Full Text of Decision 28360
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Summary:
Worked 6 years in hospital from 7:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Shift hours changed, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to improve service to patients. Little effort to make other arrangements. No evidence she sought other work before leaving. The change of shifts was not a significant change in work duties.
Decision 76279
Full Text of Decision 76279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
The claimant, who had been in sanitation with the company for a period of time was moved from sanitation to night packaging. These duties were different because he had to switch to a different department. He stated that both the salary and the hours were less and he felt he would get a decrease of $2.00 per hour, but in fact, it was $1.25. The claimant lost his job because he was bumped from it by another employee under the collective agreement. Night packaging was his only alternative, even though he was not trained in that department. The claimant did not try his new position; he was annoyed and decided to quit. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in duties |
|
Decision 54992
Full Text of Decision 54992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant argued that a reduction of his working hours from 60 hours and more to 40 hours per week was a significant change in working conditions and that this constituted constructive dismissal. Held by Umpire that the claimant had the alternative of keeping his employment. A prudent person would not have left a job providing a normal number of hours at a salary that was not negligible for no employment at all.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
Decision 52654
Full Text of Decision 52654
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant's employment, which paid $9.36 per hour plus a shift premium of $0.85 for night shifts, was cancelled. He was offered a new position at $8.84 (this constituted a reduction of 6%) and he refused it. Disqualified for having left his job without just cause. The BOR concluded that a reduction of 6% was a significant change in the working conditions. The Umpire, relying on CUBs 35206 and 39547, found that the BOR had erred in law in its finding.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 41132
Full Text of Decision 41132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Act does not require that it be an emergency situation that leads to separation from employment as a result of significant changes in working conditions, but that the changes be significant and that, in the circumstances, leaving be the only reasonable alternative.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
rationale |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
legal presumption |
|
Decision 41556
Full Text of Decision 41556
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant was a part time cashier for two years. She had two children; one with a learning disability for which she received a subsidy. The new supervisor cut her hrs from 25 to 10 hrs/week. Claimant lost the subsidy because she needed 25 hrs to qualify and quit her job. Umpire concluded that while there was no guarantee of her particular hours, a pattern had been established whereby the claimant was given sufficient hours to permit her to receive the subsidy relating to her disabled child. Umpire found that this falls within the meaning of the Act being a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary.
Decision 41323
Full Text of Decision 41323
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked regularly but after a plant closed this displaced 55 full time employees and more were added to the part time list. As a result of this, claimant was at the low end of the part-time list and while she was getting some hours it was not a lot. Umpire concluded that this was a case where " significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary" might well apply, there is no doubt that her future remuneration would be significantly reduced.
Decision 40581
Full Text of Decision 40581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Quit her job because she had difficulty working with the supervisor on the night shift. The manager offered her a transfer to the day shift but the day shift provided only a part time work which reduced her hours and earnings. Umpire concluded that the part time work to which claimant was relegated significantly modified the terms and conditions of her employment and having regard to the problem she encountered on the night shift claimant had no reasonable alternative other than to leave her job.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
antagonistic relations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 39975
Full Text of Decision 39975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit his job because upon his return to work following an accident the employer offered him lighter work with lower wages until he was able to return to his regular duties. The Umpire ruled that while the circumstances of this case may have provided a reason for quitting, they did not constitute just cause for leaving secure employment.
Decision 39559
Full Text of Decision 39559
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Umpire concluded that a change from a supervisor on a full-time basis to a part-time job is a drastic decrease in his status and in his salary particularly and this matter is covered by section28(4)(g). Under the circumstances, he had a right to quit his job voluntarily with just cause.
Decision 39547
Full Text of Decision 39547
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his employment after a reduction in salary of just over 30%. Umpire ruled that if the claimant had remained in his old job with reduced income, he would at least have had a job and would have been able to take the necessary time to find other insurable employment. He preferred to receive UI benefits, which gave him less income, even with a reduced salary. Umpire found that this solution was not reasonable, and even more obviously was not the reasonable solution as defined by the legislation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 38479
Full Text of Decision 38479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit her job because when she returned to work after her maternity leave, the employer offered her reduced hours of work which she found unacceptable. Umpire concluded that a significant reduction in work hours with a consequent loss of income gave the claimant just cause to leave the employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
Decision A-0868.96
Full Text of Decision A-0868.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Umpire decided that the departure was not justified since the decrease in pay was not unilateral, but instead had been negotiated by the employer and the union. FCA confirmed that the consent of the bargaining agent was an important factor in considering justification within the meaning of par. 28(4)(g), but it was not the deciding factor. Therefore, the Umpire’s intervention was not justified since the BOR had taken into account all the circumstances and found that the claimant was justified in leaving because of the decrease in pay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Decision 37662
Full Text of Decision 37662
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit because of a reduction wage of 24.8%. Umpire concluded that 24.8% was a significant modification of his wages and he had just cause to leave his job. The word "significant" in the context of subsection 28(4)(g) means "noteworthy, of considerable amount of effect or importance, not insignificant or negligible".
Decision 36030
Full Text of Decision 36030
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a reduction in wages from $15 to $10.75 per hour. Going from a pattern over 18 years of 30 hrs/week to 24 hrs is in itself a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary. The BOR erred in law in failing to apply par.28(4)(g) of the Act.
Decision 30900
Full Text of Decision 30900
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Hours of work changed from 40 to 16 hours/week after claimant had advised that she planned to quit to return to school. Employer hired replacement; hours changed to two nights. Only reason for the change in hours of work was as a result of the employer's need to take steps to replace the claimant.
Decision 25209
Full Text of Decision 25209
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0517.94
Decision A-0517.94
Full Text of Decision A-0517.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
The change in employment status from full-time to part-time (37 to 27 hours), i.e. hours of work reduced by almost 30% with reduced number not guaranteed, constituted a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary within 28(4)(g). Concurred in by the FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
reduction in hours |
|
Decision 28295
Full Text of Decision 28295
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Managers who left when the store was taken over by another company. Reasons: an increase in the work-week from 44 to 52 hours, an expectation that they would work 12 hour-days, loss of yearly bonuses, etc. The Board referred to 28(4)(g) and did not err in law. Also a constructive dismissal.
Decision 27933
Full Text of Decision 27933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Along with all employees, claimant accepted the rate reduction and continued to work for another 16 months. Continuing to work for a period of 16 months after a wage reduction cannot be said to be significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages and salary.
Decision 27920
Full Text of Decision 27920
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Employed by Sears for 20 years. Reduction in working hours from 20 to 30 a week, to 8 to 10 a week in last 18 months. Unilateral decision by employer. The Board erred in law in failing to address the issue of the change in working conditions as a significant change in the terms of her employment.
Decision 26788
Full Text of Decision 26788
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
A reduction in pay from $12.50 per hour to $12.00 per hour does not amount to a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary. Likewise, work in general carpentry, as opposed to trim carpentry, is not a significant change in work duties.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 26627
Full Text of Decision 26627
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Employee paid $5.50 per hour. Quotes para. 28(4)(g). I consider that the reduction of hours of employment from 30 hours to 12 hours per week is a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting his wages and the Act then allows voluntary separation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Decision 24713
Full Text of Decision 24713
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
It is argued that reduced hours did not amount under 28(4) to no reasonable alternative but to immediately leave. To find that the work was unsuitable due to shortened hours which certainly made it unsatisfactory would be a precedent applying to many cases of part-time work. Error in law by Board.
Decision 24091
Full Text of Decision 24091
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant has not established that she comes within the exception of para. 28(4)(g) of the Act "significant modifications of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary" which I do not believe can apply to modifications of hours for one week only.
Decision 74393
Full Text of Decision 74393
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The claimant established a claim for benefits effective May 3, 2008. The claimant left her job to accompany her spouse, who is in the military and was moving to Winnipeg. She stated that she was actively searching for employment in Winnipeg; however, that she was not available for employment there until they complete the move at the end of July 2009. In the present case the claimant repeatedly disclosed her non availability...Due to her circumstances; she is not actively searching for immediate opportunities of employment as required by the legislation. The Commission determined that the claimant did not qualify for benefits because of her non-availability. The appeal by the commission is allowed.
Decision 66030
Full Text of Decision 66030
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claiment left her job in Nova Scotia to be with her fiancé. The couple had not live together before and they plan to marry in two years. Relying on CUBS 51375, 52816, 54025, 55392, 55511, 57053, 57337 and 57229, the Umpire concluded that the issue appears to be whether the couple had definite or imminent plans to marry. In those decisions,the couples definite plans to marry in six months were held to be just cause for the claimant leaving her employment to be with her fiancé.
Decision 65418
Full Text of Decision 65418
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees erred in law when they used the notion of "stability in the relationship" as a substitute for "common law relationship".
Decision 64224
Full Text of Decision 64224
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Had the claimant been in a common-law relationship, he would have had just cause for quitting his job to return to his house and his partner, under section 29(c)(ii) of the EI Act.
Decision A-0673.02
Full Text of Decision A-0673.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The claimant was disqualified for quitting her employment in order to join her fiancé in the states. The Court agreed with the Board of Referees and the Umpire that the claimant had not established a spousal relationship within the meaning of the EI Act and concluded that leaving her employment was not her only reasonable option.
Decision 57053
Full Text of Decision 57053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in law when it determined that the claimant moved to Gilliam to establish a common law union which, it determined, amounted to just cause. The parties must have lived together in a conjugal relationship for one year, under the legislation, for the relationship to be the equivalent of a marriage.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Decision 55300
Full Text of Decision 55300
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a permanent employment and her spouse was unemployed. Claimant left her job in Ontario to accompany her spouse who was going to a seasonal employment (10-week duration) in New-Brunswick. No indication that the move would be permanent: the possibility was considered but no decision had been made. In fact, they did move back to Ontario. Held that at the time of the move, the claimant was the only spouse who was employed and providing financial support for the couple. Claimant should not have jeopardized that without the firm indication that there was no alternative to her moving at that time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 55392
Full Text of Decision 55392
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0673.02
Decision 53102
Full Text of Decision 53102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
No spousal relationship of any kind existed prior to the claimant leaving her employment. They had in fact decided to begin such a relationship. To accept that a decision to relocate to begin cohabitation with a person with whom a romantic relationship has begun would be to unreasonably stretch the notion of an obligation to accompany a spouse.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision A-0784.99
Full Text of Decision A-0784.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The FCA simply dismissed the application for judicial review without any explanations. In light of the very brief decision, there were no grounds to seek leave to appeal at the Supreme Court.
Decision 46868A
Full Text of Decision 46868A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit to follow her 8-month common-law partner. She argued that had she married she would only have to be married one day to have just cause for leaving employment. She felt that the Reg. were discriminatory. Umpire agreed with claimant but was satisfied that the law was stated for a good reason. It demands a sufficient commitment to permit persons to utilize the benefits and obligations of the law. Marriage is a formal commitment and does not require a time element.
Decision 49011
Full Text of Decision 49011
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit to move to Brampton to be with fiancée. No common law relationship established prior to moving. No children involved and no proposed marriage date until 11 months later. BOR was of the view that the situation was similar to a person moving to get married and allowed the appeal. In reference to Tanguay (A-1458.84), the Umpire found that claimant had not exhausted all reasonable alternatives available to her prior to leaving her employment. Commission's appeal was allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 47599
Full Text of Decision 47599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
In the summer of 1997, claimant's wife gave him an ultimatum that if the relationship was to continue he would need to work around home instead of up North. He left before Christmas 1997 to return home to go to school and he did not request leave before leaving. Claimant decided not to return to work, alleging the necessity to follow a spouse and also take a course of study. Disqualification imposed for having left his employment without just cause. Decision upheld by Umpire. Claimant initially took the position while fully aware that it would mean living away from his wife. It cannot retroactively be good cause for him to leave in order to relocate with her without showing he had no other alternative.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 46922
Full Text of Decision 46922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her employment in La Baie to move to Quebec City to be with her boyfriend. BOR decided that she had just cause for leaving to be with her spouse. Umpire decided that BOR mistakenly considered the claimant's boyfriend to be a spouse although she had never lived with him and she was not married to him. The claimant's departure was a purely personal decision and there is nothing to indicate that this was the only reasonable alternative in her case.
Decision 46356
Full Text of Decision 46356
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
In August 1998, claimant moved from Pennetang to Barrie to live with her fiancee who had obtained a job. They had been living together for approximately 7 months and it was their intention to marry in 1999. Claimant stated that she was not able to commute as she does not possess a driver's license. Referring to CUB 27800, the Umpire ruled that although the claimant and her fiancee do not have a child, there was evidence of a committed relationship. The Commission appealed to the FCA.**NOTA: The Commission was of the view that there were no facts on file to suggest that a long term relationship existed prior to the claimant and her fiancee living together and that they had only lived together for a mere 7 months. Case appealed to seek jurisprudence to support the Commission's 12-month policy.
Decision 45471
Full Text of Decision 45471
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left job in April 98 in order to move to live with her fiancé. They planned to marry in December 98. She had been commuting on weekends and holidays for over 11 months. The BOR found that claimant meets the definition of common-law relationship and that the VL was justified. The Umpire refused to interfere. The Commission did not appeal the case to the FCA since the notion of "no other reasonable alternative" was not covered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Decision 42390A
Full Text of Decision 42390A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Living in Toronto, the claimant and her husband mutually agreed to purchase a home in Barrie. Claimant quit because of difficulties to commute daily and was disqualified for having left her job without just cause. Disqualification upheld by BOR. Found that the decision to relocate was purely personal, not necessitated by a spousal job transfer and that there was no urgent or compelling reason to quit until all alternatives were considered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 44504
Full Text of Decision 44504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job in Victoriaville to go and live with her boyfriend in Montreal. Leaving without just cause. Appeal allowed by BOR, given that she and her boyfriend had spent every weekend and holiday together for the past 2 years, and could thus be considered spouses. Error according to the Umpire. Claimant did not have spousal status within the meaning of the Act and the case law when she left her job.
Decision 41254A
Full Text of Decision 41254A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job because she became engaged to a man who lived one and one-half hours away from her residence and moved to his residence to live with him. Umpire concluded that the reasons she provided for leaving her job do not meet the definition of just cause. She provided nothing more than what may be described as a good personal reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 43012
Full Text of Decision 43012
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Clmt quit her job to establish a common-law relationship with her partner to another location. Moving in anticipation of an imminent marriage is just cause. Moving in anticipation to a common-law relationship is not considered just cause for leaving employment.
Decision 42653
Full Text of Decision 42653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Clmt quit her job to accompany her husband. It was not unreasonable to require that she commute between her new place of residence and her work (about 40 minutes) while looking for another job near her home.
Decision 39289
Full Text of Decision 39289
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Quit her job to relocate with her common-law spouse. Claimant explained that they lived together on weekends from April, 1995 to December 1995. Umpire concluded that it cannot be said that claimant was living with her boyfriend since they were living in two separate cities and only spent weekends together for a period of 9 months. Jurisprudence is constant on this issue and the concepts of "just cause and "no reasonable alternative" must apply.
Decision 38930
Full Text of Decision 38930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Common law relationship for 8 months. Commission policy in keeping with other federal and provincial statutes, recognizes persons who have lived common law for one year as being spouses for the purpose of the Act. Umpire stated that although the Commission may implement policy in support of its discretionary power, such policy cannot be applied blindly or automatically. Concluded it was reasonable to leave her job to accompany her common law spouse, due to distance and intention to marry.
Decision 38048
Full Text of Decision 38048
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
When one spouse who is no longer working, relocates in order to establish a new business and once again become gainfully employed, the leaving of employment by the other spouse in order to keep the family together constitutes just cause, especially when the family has, due to economic necessities, been required to remain apart for a period of time.
Decision A-0633.96
Full Text of Decision A-0633.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left employment to accompany her spouse to another region. The spouse was not assured of another job. Claimant disqualified. According to the Umpire, the evidence did not establish the need for her to accompany her spouse: it was instead a personal decision. Appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
Decision 36777
Full Text of Decision 36777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left her employment to join and live with her friend. It was found that the concept of spouse, for the purpose of paragraph 28(4)(b), involves co-habiting with a person and not only taking steps to co-habit. In this case, the evidence did not show that the claimant had a spouse at the time she left her employment. Rather, she went to join her friend with a view to cohabiting with him.
Decision A-0535.96
Full Text of Decision A-0535.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant had stayed for another 9 months in Saskatoon after her common law spouse of 8 months had moved to Moncton. Considering the distance factor, found by Umpire that it was virtually impossible for the claimant to conduct a job search. The BOR has failed to properly address the issue of whether having regard to all the circumstances (distance between both localities) the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. FCA refused to interfere.
Decision A-0765.95
Full Text of Decision A-0765.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Quit job in 02-94 in order to be able to benefit from a severance package. Reason for accepting the buy-out was that she would be moving in 06-94 to be with her husband. FCA stated that if a claimant leaves his or her job early, that is, at a date which is not within reasonable proximity to the date of the event which represents just cause for v.l. then, in the absence of a separate just cause, claimant is barred from receiving benefits by virtue of ss. 28(1) of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
monetary considerations |
|
Decision 34440
Full Text of Decision 34440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Requirement that a common-law relationship must have been in existence for a year before it will be treated as a spousal relationship is a policy decision only. That circumstance is only one of many situations in which good cause for leaving employment will be found. **NOTE: No appeal was pursued in this case as the Commission found that the fact-finding as to the possibility of another job was incomplete. Also, all circumstances must be canvassed in determining whether the claimant had explored all other reasonable alternatives before leaving employment.
Decision 34376
Full Text of Decision 34376
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
No longer a requirement that urgency be demonstrated in a decision to leave employment. The test is one that requires an evaluation of all the circumstances, of which the existence of any of the circumstances described in par.28(4) is only one facet. No reasonable alternative open to claimant.
Decision 28343
Full Text of Decision 28343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0466.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision A-0466.95
Full Text of Decision A-0466.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Moved from Ontario to N.B. after husband's layoff. Umpire not concerned whether decision to move made alone or agreed upon by both spouses. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had failed to consider "all the circumstances" as the law obliged them to do.
Claimant quit job and moved from Ontario to N.B. after husband's layoff. The FCA stated that although it might be a relevant circumstance to be considered, there was no absolute requirement under par.28(4)(b) that the spouse whom the claimant accompanies have obtained employment at the new location.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 28982
Full Text of Decision 28982
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0650.95
Decision A-0650.95
Full Text of Decision A-0650.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Policy of the CEIC founded in jurisprudence that a claimant does not show just cause unless the spouse has relocated for employment acknowledged by Umpire. Appeal nonetheless allowed considering the particular circumstances as no reasonable alternative found to be open to claimant. Upheld by FCA.
Decision 30544
Full Text of Decision 30544
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Leave of absence requested to relocate from Red Deer to Winnipeg to accompany husband who was moving to attend biblical training. Leave started June 14 and claimant was married on June 18. Just cause shown: newly married and training only available in Winnipeg.
Decision 30435
Full Text of Decision 30435
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
When one spouse voluntarily moves to a new geographical location, without compelling reason to do so, there is no obligation on the other to accompany. When one spouse remains employed the obligation is on the other spouse to stay in the area where the one spouse already has employment.
Decision 30280
Full Text of Decision 30280
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his job to relocate with his wife who was moving to Winnipeg to return to school. In compliance with s. 28(4), just cause found. It may well be that the Board also determined that he had no reasonable alternative, but it was not necessary in my view for them to have gone further.
Decision 29980
Full Text of Decision 29980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job to care for her boyfriend's daughter. Claimant lived with boyfriend for approximately 13 months off and on during last 4 years. Has not lived with boyfriend for the last 12 months consecutively. Common law relationship not established. Para. 28(4)(b) not met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 24110A
Full Text of Decision 24110A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Their relationship was maintained for 6 months and falls short of the 12-month requirement. Furthermore, their family circumstances do not clearly favour a finding of just cause. They did not have a child and they were not attempting to create a stable family unit for a child.
CUB 24562 referred to. Claimant and her partner cohabited for 2 months and maintained a long-distance relationship for another 4 months. These 6 months fall short of the 12-month requirement established by other statutory schemes for finding a common-law marriage.
Decision 28820
Full Text of Decision 28820
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Moving of a spouse resulting in just cause is often where the move is required by the first spouse's employer, or a spouse might move to take advantage of a significant career advancement or to obtain employment. The test is whether the reasons for the move justified the other spouse to leave work.
There is no legal obligation for one spouse to follow another. The word "obligation" in 28(4)(b) refers to society's expectations that spouses will live together. Para. 28(4)(b), indeed ss. 28(4) as a whole, is a codification of the pre-existing jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 28771
Full Text of Decision 28771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant's wife wished to be with relatives in Ontario, so they moved from Alberta. It is argued that ss.28(4) simply means that the husband or wife must go where the other one travels regardless of whether there is any employment awaiting either spouse. Claimant left for a strictly personal reason.
Decision 28358
Full Text of Decision 28358
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
After acquiring property at some distance from where they were employed, claimant and husband made a joint decision to move. Her husband was prepared to commute by automobile (11/2 hours) but she considered this was not feasible. Held that claimant's move was a personal choice for personal reasons.
Decision 28344
Full Text of Decision 28344
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The Commission is at liberty to implement a policy of including common-law relationship as spouses. Having done so, however, it is now precluded from arguing that in this particular case, the word "spouse" should be given its ordinary meaning of married people.
Decision 28183
Full Text of Decision 28183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Held that the Board erred in deciding that the claimant was justified in asking her employer a leave of absence without pay to leave the Beauce region and move in Chambly with her boyfriend of 6 years, with whom she had never cohabitated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Decision 28090
Full Text of Decision 28090
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
A claimant's case should not be defeated merely because the spouses came to a joint decision to move. In most cases the decision will be made, not by one spouse, but after mutual discussions. Nor should feigned or imagined illness of one's spouse be used to justify leaving one's employment.
Decision 27800
Full Text of Decision 27800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left Regina to follow her friend to Quebec. Father-son relationship established de facto with her 4-year-old son. Changing location not within friend's control. Great distance not allowing commuting relationship. Started to cohabit after the move. Any other alternative than quitting not reasonable.**Moving to follow a "common-law partner" is also just cause for leaving employment: see CUBs 24562 and 25813A. To hold otherwise would be to discriminate against a person on the ground of marital status. Such discrimination is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act.**In any event, I take "obligation" to mean no more than that the law and society favour the continuation and stability of the family unit. When spouses decide that it is in their economic interest to move, for example to take advantage of a promotion, leaving by the other spouse is with just cause.**It is argued that mobility rights in s. 6 of the Charter are infringed. The non-provision of UI benefits does not deny the claimant her right to move from Saskatchewan to Quebec. It does not deny her the right to take up residence in Quebec. Nor does it prevent her from earning a livelihood there.**Para. 28(4)(b) refers to an "obligation to accompany a spouse". This is a bit unclear. I have found no authority stating that there is an obligation on one spouse to accompany the other when that other chooses to move for employment purposes. Indeed this is relevant only when both spouses are employed.**Commission policy requires a relationship that has existed for one year or a child of the union. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the one-year requirement is appropriate. See CUBs 24562 and 25577. It is not clear to me that the jurisprudence has finally decided this issue yet.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Decision 27787
Full Text of Decision 27787
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant was not a spouse either by marriage or by common law at the time she left her employment. The words of s. 28(4)(b) are clear and cannot be extended to a person who has become engaged to be married and whose desire it is to co-habit prior to marriage.
Decision 27081
Full Text of Decision 27081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Commuted weekends for 3 months following relocation of common-law spouse. They had been living together for 9 months and he had become the father figure to her sons although he was not the biological father. Sons very attached to him. Not good for family relationship to try to keep two households.
Decision 26935
Full Text of Decision 26935
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant decided to leave her employment to go with her husband to their retirement property. She had been employed at Sunny Crest Nursing Home in Whitby. Her husband retired from his job with General Motors. They moved to Bancroft. The Board made no error.
Decision 25813A
Full Text of Decision 25813A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Reference to CUB 24562: common-law spouse not excluded from the definition. However, in all the legislation on recognizing common-law spouses, the one-year period is regarded as a minimum period of cohabitation. No statute recognize a shorter period. Thus not a spouse within the meaning of 28(4)(b).
Decision 26336
Full Text of Decision 26336
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant and husband both employed with National Defence in Quebec. Her husband retired in 1991 after 35 years. They wished to move and settle in B.C. This they did when they finally succeeded selling their house in 7-93, at which time claimant left her employment. Held that this is not just cause.
Decision 26127
Full Text of Decision 26127
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left to move and enter into a common-law relationship. Jurisprudence examined. The only recent decision which runs contrary to this line of cases is CUB 24562. When confronted with inconsistent precedents, the adjudicator must follow the more authoritative judicial precedent, i.e. LANDRY.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Decision 25923
Full Text of Decision 25923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left to accompany partner with whom she had cohabited for one month. Her "obligation" under 28(4)(b) was neither to accompany a spouse in what was considered to be the legal concept of that term, or within the expanded meaning of that term as adopted by the Commission's policy (12-month cohabitation).
Decision 25880
Full Text of Decision 25880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left B.C. to move to Whitehorse with boyfriend who has since become her common-law spouse. It is argued that 28(4)(b) does not apply. The Board considered she had just cause for leaving in anticipation of a similar position with her spouse's employer at her new residence. This is a question of fact.
Decision 25577
Full Text of Decision 25577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Case argued on the basis of Commission's policy recognizing a one-year common-law relationship. A common-law relationship will suffice when its permanency can be ascertained by reference to a measurable objective standard. Cohabitation for a 4-month period is insufficient.
Decision 25581
Full Text of Decision 25581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
I cannot accept that a common-law relationship can never be accommodated under s. 28 and, indeed, the law is evolving in this regard. More and more, we will be looking to stability of unions and possibly recognize common-law unions although the union must be more permanent and lasting (than 3 months).
Decision 25542
Full Text of Decision 25542
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left Toronto for Winnipeg. She and her fiance cohabited upon arrival there. Wedding set tentatively to take place in 3 months. The Board held that just cause existed and referred to Canadian and Manitoba Human Rights Acts. Error in law. Common-law relationship not established prior to moving.
Decision 25196
Full Text of Decision 25196
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her work in Toronto after 25 years because retired husband did not, after 8 months, find work. They were temporarily living with their daughter. They could no longer continue living in their home. Had to lower expenses. The Board erred in law in failing to apply para. 28(4)(b).
Decision 25133
Full Text of Decision 25133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence has established that a person who accompanies a spouse to another location for purposes of employment is justified in leaving. In the instant case the husband left his job to accompany his wife who had no employment and both moved to a place where neither had any employment.
Decision 24933
Full Text of Decision 24933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left 1-6-93 to be married in July. She wanted to get the house and garden ready for her move to the farm. I pointed out that spouse does not mean spouse-to-be. LANDRY D. quoted. I agree that she left for personal reasons, and personal reasons do not mean that a person leave with just cause.
Decision 24916
Full Text of Decision 24916
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The wife decided to move away from the big city living which she felt threatened the wellbeing of herself and her family. She just picked up and left her job with no other in mind. In this she was followed by claimant. Held that this did not fall into "an obligation to accompany a spouse".
Decision 24562
Full Text of Decision 24562
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Their relationship fell short of one year and, in light of examples from other statutory provisions concerning recognition of common law relationships, claimant might well not be regarded as a typical common law spouse. However, considering all the circumstances, she had just cause for leaving.
CUB 22033 not followed. As per the Human Rights Act, "spouse" in para. 28(4)(b) includes common law spouses. This does not mean just cause in all such cases. But in this case, considering all the circumstances, claimant had just cause even though their relationship fell short of one year.
Decision 23572
Full Text of Decision 23572
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left to move to be with her future husband. She comments on the fact that she began a common-law relationship with him a year earlier. However, a common-law husband is not a spouse under the Act and Regulations. Extenuating circumstances exist. She did marry the common-law husband.
Decision 21349
Full Text of Decision 21349
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1210.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision A-1210.92
Full Text of Decision A-1210.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left her employment to live with a friend whom she intended to marry a few months later. The Board assumed that two persons who do not have a common household or are not bound by marriage ties can nevertheless be spouses within the meaning of para. 28(4)(b). In our opinion this is an error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 22742
Full Text of Decision 22742
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
I do not think that refusal to be transferred constitutes just cause for leaving employment when the reason is a temporary spousal separation for 3 months (until end of school term) and then an unexplained refusal by the spouse to move permanently.
Decision 22700
Full Text of Decision 22700
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The Board allowed the appeal. This is clearly wrong in law. It is the UI Act which had to be dealt with and if Parliament had intended to include common-law relationships in ss. 28(4) it would have done so. Instead, it clearly refers to "a spouse".
Decision 20793
Full Text of Decision 20793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0373.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision A-0373.92
Full Text of Decision A-0373.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Did not live with fiance while in Regina and moved to Hull to be with him. CUB 4652 bears precisely on this: relationship purely voluntary. She had a right to do so but no obligation. The community at large expects of married couples that they maintain a home. No comment from FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 22033
Full Text of Decision 22033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant and her friend had been living together on weekends for 3 years. She commuted every week from Grand Centre to Edmonton and lived with her parents during the week. She left to live with her friend on continuing basis. This is not just cause for leaving employment.
Meaning of spouse in para. 28(4)(b) examined. It means a wife or husband. If Parliament wanted to include a common law spouse it would have so stated. It is not for an Umpire to expand the meaning of the word to include a common-law relationship. To quit to follow a common-law spouse is not just cause.
Decision 21849
Full Text of Decision 21849
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Here, claimant's wife moved to Kamloops to pursue her education. Such activity is by its nature temporary. Also, there is considerable personal choice in deciding where to pursue studies. I cannot characterize the leaving of employment by claimant as just cause.
It has long been held to be just cause for one spouse to leave to follow the other spouse when that other has taken employment in the new location. This circumstance justifies one member of the couple leaving employment and taking the risk of becoming unemployed.
Decision 21500
Full Text of Decision 21500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Leaves Montreal to come and live in Gatineau with her friend she has been seeing for three years; not common law spouse and no child. The Board erred in saying there was discrimination between married couples and common law couples infringing on rights and freedoms.
Decision 13504
Full Text of Decision 13504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
To move with husband to new home in Shelburne. Commuting time to Toronto is a minimum of 1 1/2 hours. A valid personal reason but not just cause. Given the reason, the job enquiries before leaving and the obtaining employment, disqualification reduced from 3 to 1 week.
Decision 25183
Full Text of Decision 25183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse same sex relation |
|
Summary:
In short, I do not have to decide whether the word "spouse" comprises same sex spouses because ss. 28(4) stipulates that all circumstances must be taken into account in order to determine if the claimant's departure constituted the only reasonable alternative in his case.
Decision 23117
Full Text of Decision 23117
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse same sex relation |
|
Summary:
Claimant left to obtain improved medical treatment for his friend. The manner in which such relationships may be dealt with in other statutes does not apply with respect to the UI Act in the absence of a specific amendment to the Act or judicial interpretation.
Decision A0477.12
Full Text of Decision A0477.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
Summary:
The Commission denied the claimant’s claim because she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause. The claimant voluntarily left her employment and accepted a severance package. She inferred from this that the store was closing. She admitted that she could have requested a transfer to another store, but did not do so as she believed the request would be denied. She later stated on her application that she had felt pressured to leave her position. The BOR allowed her appeal, finding that she was not disqualified from receiving benefits because she had left her employment due to undue pressure by her employer in accordance with paragraph 29(c)(xiii) of the EI Act. In dismissing the application for judicial review, the FCA found that there was no reviewable error made by the Umpire to warrant the Court’s intervention.
Decision 70104
Full Text of Decision 70104
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
Summary:
The claimant invokes subsection 29(c)(xiii) contending that the employer placed undue pressure on him to quit. That contention is not supported by the evidence. The employer intended to recommend dismissal. Following discussion with claimant's union the employer agreed to retain the claimant in its employ subject to options and conditions it presented and the claimant chose the option of resigning. He was not pressured to resign.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Decision 61327A
Full Text of Decision 61327A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
Summary:
The claimant did not report for work on the day following a discussion in which the employer informed him that he would be dismissed and afterwards went to the claimant's residence to collect his equipment. The Umpire says that the employer's position was clear, regardless of whether he had been fired or had quit, the claimant was no longer an employee and subparagraph 29 (c) (xiii) could be applied. The Umpire found that there was insufficient evidence on file either to prove that the claimant had left voluntarily or to demonstrate misconduct on the part of the claimant.
Decision A-0175.96
Full Text of Decision A-0175.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit lengthy employment when the severance pay provisions of her collective agreement were threatened by current negotiations. While her resignation was understandable, it was precipitous and the FCA ruled that the claimant had not established "just cause" under s.28 of the Act as she had no reasonable assurance of another employment in the near future or experienced "undue" pressure by the employer to quit.
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 |
monetary considerations |
|
Decision 27489
Full Text of Decision 27489
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
Summary:
The circumstance dealing with undue pressure reads "undue pressure by an employer on employees to leave". Claimant has misapprehended the text and application of that provision. The pressure exerted by the employer was not aimed at inducing her to leave. She could have continued indefinitely.
