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
Adriana Moga
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by the Claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given on
November 2, 1995 at New Westminster, British Columbia
Appeal heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on May 7, 1997
DECISION
THE HON. R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE
The Commission ruled that Ms. Moga was disqualified from receiving benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment with the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre without just cause. The Board of Referees dismissed her appeal and she appeals to the Umpire.
Ms. Moga has a son who was 12 when she left her employment. She and the child's father had separated in 1985. They shared custody of their son. The boy had lived with his mother in Winnipeg until 1992. He then wanted to live with his father and did live with him - first in Calgary and later in Vancouver.
Ms. Moga wanted to be near her son. There is some suggestion that at one point she planned to move with him to Europe but that did not happen. She left her job in Winnipeg on July 27, 1995 and moved to Burnaby. She made an application for benefits at the New Westminster office of the Commission on August 11, 1995. On her application she said she moved to Burnaby because her son lived there and she liked to be closer to him.
From August 15 to September 18 Ms. Moga was in Romania where her father was ill. That is irrelevant to the issue on this appeal. While it is also irrelevant I will mention that Ms. Moga informed me that her son now lives with her as the father is in Europe.
The Board of Referees found that Ms. Moga left her employment for personal reasons which May have been good cause but were not just cause under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Under section 28 of the Act just cause for voluntarily leaving one's employment exists where, having regard to all the circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment. Among the specific circumstances the Act says May be considered are:
(b) obligation to accompany a spouse or dependent child to another residence;
(e) obligation to care for a child or a member of the immediate family.
While the facts did not bring Ms. Moga within either of those express circumstances, the enumeration of such circumstances in the Act shows a recognition by Parliament that family units and family relationships are important when one is assessing a person's justification for voluntarily leaving his or her employment. While the child and parents involved here were not a "traditional" family unit there were permanent parent-child relationships between each of the parents and their son. Because her son lived at a distance from Winnipeg Ms. Moga could only fulfil her role as a mother sharing custody by moving to or near the place where her son made his home with his father.
The Board of Referees erred in law by ignoring Ms. Moga's family circumstances and in not finding that, having regard to all the circumstances, she had just cause to leave her employment.
The appeal is allowed and the disqualification ruling made by the Commission is set aside.
RONALD C. STEVENSON
Umpire
Fredericton
26 June 1997