IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefit by
Carla L. McLean
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by the Claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given on
July 20, 1994 at Moncton, New Brunswick
Appeal heard at Miramichi, N. B, on July 10, 1995
DECISION
THE HON. R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE
Miss McLean, then 25 years of age, left her employment as a licensed practical nurse at the M.S.A. General Hospital in Abbotsford, British Columbia in April, 1991 in order to return to her home town of Newcastle, N.B. to care for her mother who suffers from severe health problems. Although Miss McLean has several siblings, most of whom live in British Columbia, she is single and was the only member of the family who was able to assume responsibility for her mother's care.
The Commission disqualified her from receiving benefits on the ground she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause. The Board of Referees dismissed her appeal and she appeals to the Umpire.
The Board of Referees did not include in its decision a statement of its findings on questions of fact material to its decision as required by section 79 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It said simply:
The Board feels that the claimant made a personal decision to leave her employment and return to New Brunswick to care for her mother. Apparently, she had "good cause" but not "just cause" for leaving her employment.
While the only enforceable obligation of one to a parent is that of financial support, subsection 28(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act gives statutory recognition to the obligation, moral or otherwise, one has to care for members of her immediate family. It is beyond argument that "member of the immediate family" includes a parent.
I have considered whether to refer the matter back for re-hearing or re-determination and have concluded that the material in the file is adequate to enable me to give the decision the Board of Referees should have given.
In the circumstances in which Miss McLean found herself, I am satisfied that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment in order to fulfil her filial obligations. It would be callous to suggest that the purchase of care for one's parent or parents is a reasonable alternative for a person in Miss McLean's situation.
It was not possible for Miss McLean to conduct, from British Columbia, an effective job search in New Brunswick before leaving her job. After returning to New Brunswick she was successful in finding employment.
The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Commission is vacated.
RONALD C. STEVENSON
Umpire
Fredericton
28 July 1995