IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefit by
David EASSON
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to an Umpire by the
claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees
given at Edmonton, Alberta on October 7, 1992.
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-1598-92
DECISION
DENAULT, J., UMPIRE:
The claimant has requested that this appeal be dealt with on the record and without a hearing. This is an appeal from the claimant of a Board of Referees decision which ultimately dismissed the claimant's appeal on grounds other than those upon which the Commission had disqualified the claimant.
It is not necessary for me to review all of the facts in this case other than to simply mention that the Commission advised the claimant that he would be disqualified from receiving benefits on the grounds that he had lost his job due to his own misconduct. The Board of Referees carefully reviewed all of the facts and arrived at the following conclusion:
Bound by the Unemployment Insurance Act, by all the facts presented before it and by jurisprudence, this Board, after careful consideration, finds that David Easson did not lose his job by reason of his own misconduct but rather, he voluntarily quit. This Board finds, further, that a period of disqualification must be served by David Easson because he did not have "just cause" to quit when he did.
It is evident from the foregoing that the Board found that there was no misconduct which was the only basis of the disqualification and indeed the only ground upon which the claimant's appeal was founded. The Board of Referees ought to have concluded its enquiry at that point and granted the claimant's appeal.
In CUB 13453, I stated that the notions of "misconduct" and "voluntarily leaving without just cause" are two distinct notions and are treated as such under the Act. When the Commission has chosen to found that disqualification on one of these grounds the Board of Referees cannot substitute its own opinion, its jurisdiction on appeal is to determine whether that ground is well founded.
In continuing its enquiry into other possible grounds for disqualification, the Board of Referees clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. This of course is sufficient reason, pursuant to section 80(a), to set aside the Board's decision. The claimant's appeal must therefore be granted.
Pierre Denault
UMPIRE
Ottawa
October 13, 1992