TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefit by
Jean-Sébastien GUINDON
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to an Umpire from the decision of a Board of Referees given on March 21, 2002 at St Hyacinthe, Quebec.
DECISION
André Quesnel, Umpire
The Commission refused to deliver the claimed benefits because the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. The Commission criticized him for not having produced any medical proof to justify his absence.
The Board of Referees partially overturned the decision when it held that the refusal to deliver the claimed benefits should have ended when the claimant produced a medical certificate concerning his state of health.
The reason submitted by the claimant, after two days of working at his employer's, was his poor health.
The Commission asked the Umpire to overturn the decision of the Board of Referees, stating that it erred when it failed to rule on whether, considering all the circumstances, the fact that the claimant left his job was the only reasonable alternative, as the Employment Insurance Act (S 29(c)) requires.
There was no doubt that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment. On January 3, 2002, the claimant stated, after having worked two days before leaving on December 10, 2001 [TRANSLATION] "I quite simply decided to leave because I didn't know and still don't know what I have." (E.4)
The employer allowed the claimant to take a one-week leave to take care of himself; the leave lasted three weeks, during which the employer inquired about the claimant's intentions. After three weeks, the claimant informed his employer that he would not be coming back.(E.5)
However, the Board of Referees considered that the reason submitted by the claimant for leaving his employment, namely illness, was well founded; the employer had even observed the sickly state in question. The claimant had a phobia of doctors and everything that had to do with the treatment of illnesses, which was why he did not consult a doctor, even though he was sick, which prevented him from receiving sickness benefits.
This concerns a borderline case, in which the Board of Referees ruled on the claimant's illness to come to the conclusion that he was justified in leaving his employment and was entitled to benefits from the moment that he produced a medical certificate, that is to say, on December 21, 200l. Under the circumstances, the claimant leaving his employment was the only reasonable alternative because of his phobia.
The conclusion reflects the analysis of the facts submitted before the Board of Referees and does not appear so unreasonable that it would be necessary to intervene to change it.
For these reasons, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.
André Quesnel
Umpire
Montreal, Quebec
May 29, 2003