Federal Court Decision #A-517-94 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. NANCY, HORSLEN

JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date:
September 21, 1995

Docket:
A-517-94

Umpire's Decision:
CUB 25209

CORAM:

STONE, J.A.
LINDEN, J.A.
McDONALD, J.A.

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

applicant,

- and -

NANCY HORSLEN,

respondent.

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, September 21, 1995.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
Thursday, September 21, 1995)

STONE, J.A.:

The Court is of the view that the learned Umpire (McGillis J.) did not err in allowing the appeal from the Board of Referees.

It is noteworthy that not only was the respondent's hours of work reduced by almost 30% per week but that the reduced number of hours was not guaranteed.

We share the Umpire's view that in dismissing the appeal before them, the majority failed to address the relevance and meaning of subparagraph 28(4)(g) of the Unemployment Insurance Act ¹ and that had they done so properly they would not have decided as they did. The legal question that needed to be addressed was whether on the facts the respondent had no reasonable alternative to leave her employment because of a "significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary". That question was not squarely addressed. We cannot see that the Umpire erred in answering it as she did and in finding there was "just cause" in the circumstances.

The s. 28 application will be dismissed.

"A.J. Stone"

J.A.

¹ Subparagraph 28(4)(g) reads:

28(4) For the purposes of this section, "just cause" for voluntarily leaving an employment exists where, having regard to all circumstances, including any of the following circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leave the employment:

...

(g) significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary