| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Summary:
Claimant on leave authorized by his employer in order to complete two university courses. Considered ineligible for the entire leave period. Disentitlement upheld by the BOR but reduced on the basis of evidence provided by the claimant at the hearing. Commission appealed to the Umpire because the claimant had not resumed the former employment. The Umpire determined that his leaving was justified and cancelled the disentitlement. The FCA reinstated the disentitlement and said it was wrong for the Umpire to find that the claimant had just cause in leaving his employment to pursue his studies. **NOTE: Ambiguity identified by the FCA in relation to the expression "resumes employment" in paragraph 28.2(2)(a); corrected in the new Employment Insurance Act (paragraph 32(2)(a) [formerly 28.2(2)(a)].
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Claimant on leave authorized by his employer in order to complete two university courses. Considered ineligible for the entire leave period. Disentitlement upheld by the BOR but reduced on the basis of evidence provided by the claimant at the hearing. Commission appealed to the Umpire because the claimant had not resumed the former employment. The Umpire determined that his leaving was justified and cancelled the disentitlement. The FCA reinstated the disentitlement and said it was wrong for the Umpire to find that the claimant had just cause in leaving his employment to pursue his studies. **NOTE: Ambiguity identified by the FCA in relation to the expression "resumes employment" in paragraph 28.2(2)(a); corrected in the new Employment Insurance Act (paragraph 32(2)(a) [formerly 28.2(2)(a)].
