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 Gregory Chatkana
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by the Claimant from a decision of the
Board of Referees given on October 4, 1995 at Winnipeg, Manitoba
Appeal heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba on September 16, 1996
THE HON. R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE
The Commission ruled that Mr. Chatkana was disqualified from receiving benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Board of Referees and now appeals to the Umpire.
Mr. Chatkana left his job as a rehabilitation counsellor in Winnipeg in order to move to the Oak Lake Reserve so he and his wife could care for his elderly mother who suffered from multiple ailments.
Subsection 28 (4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides that just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment exists when, having regard to all the circumstances, including the obligation to care for a member of one's immediate family, a claimant has no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment. The Act thus recognizes the obligation, moral or otherwise, one has to care for members of his or her immediate family.
It is beyond argument that a parent is a member of one's immediate family.
The insurance officer who investigated Mr. Chatkana's claim discussed alternatives with him including moving his mother to Winnipeg (she has always lived on the reserve and does not speak English); having other family members help care for their mother (Mr. Chatkana's sisters are married and live on other reserves); putting his mother in a nursing home (she did not want to go to a nursing home and it is native tradition for children to care for their parents); arranging home care over and above the limited care being provided by the band council (the claimant said he could not afford it).
Before he moved Mr. Chatkana explored employment opportunities on the reserve and in the Brandon area.
The Board of Referees looked at three options the claimant might have had. It seems to have accepted his reasons as to why none of his sisters could care for their mother and for not moving his mother to Winnipeg. With respect to the option of continuing with the existing situation in which his mother received some home care while he pursued his job search, the Board seems to have concluded that that was a reasonable alternative. It said "by not exploring all his options, he has not proven that he had just cause".
Mr. Chatkana's decision was not a hasty one and was not made without first exploring the job market. As I have already mentioned, one's obligation to care for a parent is a circumstance to be considered in determining the issue of just cause. I have said in another decision (CUB29760 - McLean) that it is callous to suggest that the purchase of care for a parent is a
reasonable alternative for a person who is the only family member able to assume personal responsibility for care.
After carefully reviewing the material in the record I am persuaded that Mr. Chatkana considered all options before giving up his job. The Board's finding that he had not explored all his options was an erroneous finding of fact made without regard for the material before it. In my view the evidence brought Mr. Chatkana clearly within paragraph 28 (4) (e) of the Act. The case is similar to Canada (Attorney General) v. Chafe, [1996] F.C.J. No. 972 (QL); Appeal No. A-734-95, where a similar result was upheld.
The appeal is allowed and the Commission' s disqualification decision is set aside.
RONALD C. STEVENSON
Umpire
Fredericton
11 October 1996
2011-01-10