IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
JOAN E. RAYNER
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire from a decision by the Board of Referees given at Pembroke, Ontario, on April 2, 2003.
DECISION ON THE RECORD
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:
The claimant filed this appeal and has not requested a formal hearing on the understanding that the Umpire will make a decision based on the evidence in the claim file.
The issue under appeal is whether claimant voluntarily left her employment with Rideau Regional Centre of Smith Falls, Ontario, on November 15, 2002, without just cause. The ruling of the Commission disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits and that ruling was affirmed by the Board of Referees.
The claimant completed an application for unemployment benefits on January 16, 2003 and an initial claim was established effective January 12, 2003. Claimant's application was accompanied by a Quit questionnaire in which claimant gave this reason for leaving her job: "My husband moved so I quit my job to go with him."
The applicable legislation is the Employment Insurance Act, section 29(c)(ii):
29(c) just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of the following:
(ii) obligation to accompany a spouse or dependent child to another residence,
The husband, also employed by Rideau Regional Centre, was given the opportunity to take a retirement package before November 30, 2002 and he accepted. The claimant's uncontradicted statement is that her husband was forced to take early retirement or lose the opportunity "of using the 80 clause" because of the threat of closure of the husband's place of work. Whatever the case, claimant's husband accepted retirement and he decided that their cottage at Golden Lake was better than their home in Smith Falls and that having regard his reduced income the move for him became an economic necessity.
The home in Smith Falls was put up for sale and it sold quickly. The claimant therefore left her job on November 15, 2002 to pack and move. She left Smith Falls on November 23, 2002 while her husband remained there with their daughter until his job terminated on November 30, 2002.
I am convinced after examining the material in the file that although claimant and her husband discussed the move to move to Golden Lake that the decision to move was initially made by him. Claimant justifiably said in her written submission to the Board of Referees "I feel I had no choice but to relocate with my spouse".
The Board adopted the view that the claimant didn't look for work in the new area before quitting her job in Smith Falls and that there was no urgency to follow her husband. That reasoning is in disregard of the provisions of the Act. Spouses are entitled to live together and when one spouse moves, for whatever reason, there is surely an obligation on the other spouse to follow. There is no legal requirement upon a spouse, before moving to join the other spouse, to find a job in the new location. The claimant, moreover, was justified in leaving her job before her husband's job terminated to facilitate the move to Golden Lake having regard to the situation which developed.
The decision I have reached is in harmony with the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Mullin A-466-95 affirming the decision of Umpire Stevenson in CUB 28343 - and, in harmony, as well, with Umpire Stevenson's reasoning.
I rescind the decision made by the Board of Referees and that of the Commission and allow the appeal.
"W.J. Haddad"
W.J. Haddad, Q.C. - Umpire
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
October 23, 2003.