IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
In the matter of a claim for benefits by
Carol ABRAMS
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the employer, West Lorne IGA, from the decision of a Board of Referees given on January 20, 2004 at London, Ontario
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The employer, West Lorne IGA, appeals the unanimous decision of a Board of Referees which dismissed its appeal of the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant qualified for employment insurance benefits because she had shown just cause for leaving her employment. This appeal was heard in London, Ontario on May 26, 2004. The claimant was present with her husband. The employer communicated with the Office of the Umpire to advise that he would not be attending the hearing. He referred to the submissions contained in his letter of appeal to the Umpire.
The reasons given by the claimant for quitting her employment was discrimination, harassment and personal conflicts in the work place. The situation involved the employer's children who also worked at the store. The employer and the claimant presented their respective evidence in written form and verbally at the hearing before the Board.
The Board reviewed the evidence in detail and concluded that the employer and the claimant had different perspective of what was going on at the place of employment. The Board found that the evidence was equally balanced and that, in accordance with the jurisprudence, the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt.
In his letter of appeal to the Umpire, the employer basically reviews the evidence, confirms his own position and challenges the Board's findings and conclusion.
The claimant disagreed with the employer's submissions and argued that the Board's decision was well founded on the evidence before the Board.
The determination of whether a claimant has been able to show just cause for leaving her employment and that there was no reasonable alternative to doing so entails basically a review and determination of facts. It is well established in the jurisprudence that Boards of Referees are responsible for the determination of facts.
In the Guay decision (A-1036-96), Mr. Justice Marceau of the Federal Court of Appeal stated:
"In any event, it is the Board of Referees "the pivot of the entire system put in place by the Act for the purpose of verifying and interpreting the facts" that must make this assessment."
And in Ash (A-115-94), Justice Desjardins wrote:
"It is evident from the board's decision that both the majority and minority view had been canvassed. Although the majority could have ruled otherwise, they chose to disbelieve the respondent with regard to health as being the cause for leaving his employment. The umpire could not substitute her opinion for that of the majority. The board members were in the best position and had the best opportunity to assess the evidence and make findings with regard to credibility..."
An Umpire's jurisdiction is limited by subsection 115(2) of the Employment Insurance Act. Unless the Board of Referees failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse manner or without regard for the material before it, an Umpire is required to dismiss an appeal.
In Le Centre de valorisation des produits marins de Tourelle Inc. (A-547-01) Justice Létourneau stated that the role of an Umpire is limited to deciding if the Board of Referees' appreciation of facts is reasonably compatible with the evidence before the Board.
The employer has not shown that the Board of Referees erred. To the contrary, the Board's decision is, to say the least, compatible with the evidence before the Board.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Guy Goulard
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 11, 2004