| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Summary:
The claimant was incarcerated from March 6 to April 16, 2012 as a result of a complaint filed by his spouse that he had uttered death threats against her. On March 8, 2012, he received a letter from his employer informing him that his absence was unauthorized ans asking him to appear at work and justify his absence. While still incarcerated, the claimant contacted his manager to explain that he had no choice but to resign, given that he did not know when he would be released. On April 20, 2012, he filed a claim for benefits. The Commission informed the claimant that it could not pay him benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. By allowing the application for judicial review, the FCA explained that the concept of misconduct does not require proof of penal liability. The FCA repeated the test for misconduct and found that the evidence showed that the claimant’s behaviour had led to his incarceration and to the loss of his employment. The FCA indicated that the BOR had not taken into account this evidence and that the Umpire should have intervened.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The claimant was incarcerated from March 6 to April 16, 2012 as a result of a complaint filed by his spouse that he had uttered death threats against her. On March 8, 2012, he received a letter from his employer informing him that his absence was unauthorized ans asking him to appear at work and justify his absence. While still incarcerated, the claimant contacted his manager to explain that he had no choice but to resign, given that he did not know when he would be released. On April 20, 2012, he filed a claim for benefits. The Commission informed the claimant that it could not pay him benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. By allowing the application for judicial review, the FCA explained that the concept of misconduct does not require proof of penal liability. The FCA repeated the test for misconduct and found that the evidence showed that the claimant’s behaviour had led to his incarceration and to the loss of his employment. The FCA indicated that the BOR had not taken into account this evidence and that the Umpire should have intervened.
