CUB 67330

PAUL ROULEAU, Umpire

This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees which held that the claimant had voluntarily left his job without just cause.

Mr. Tiwana submitted an application for employment insurance benefits on September 14, 2005 (exhibit 2). The Records of Employment submitted in support of the application indicated that the claimant had quit his job as labourer with NMV Lumber Ltd. in Merritt, B.C. on August 12, 2005 (exhibit 3). He then moved to Abbotsford and accepted seasonal berry picking work but after two weeks he was laid off (exhibit 4).

The claimant advised the Commission that he had quit his job because his wife's family was pressuring them to move to Abbotsford. He was told by them that they could give him a job berry picking as there was a lot of work available in that field during the summer. The claimant stated that he started working for the same berry picking contractor that his family members worked for within days after moving to Abbotsford. When asked why he gave up a permanent job to take a seasonal job that only lasted a few weeks, the claimant indicated that his work at the mill would have slowed down during the winter and he often went on employment insurance benefits anyway. He did not want to wait until he was laid off from the lumber yard as he did not want to take his children, 7 and 12 years old, out of school in the middle of the school year. He advised the Commission that the 7 year old has autism and gets special funding from the government. Finally, the claimant stated that he had hoped that he would be able to secure a permanent job while he was berry picking but he had not been able to find one after being laid off on September 3, 2005 (exhibit 6).

Based on the information before it, the Commission concluded that the claimant had not demonstrated just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment. In the Commission's view, the claimant made a purely personal choice to quit his permanent, full-time employment at NMV Lumber Ltd., in order to accept what he know would only be a seasonal and temporary job which would only last a few weeks. The claimant should have sought and secured full-time employment in the Abbotsford area prior to moving there. The Commission therefore imposed an indefinite disqualification pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act.

The claimant appealed to a Board of Referees which dismissed his appeal, stating its reasons, in part, as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACTS, APPLICATIONS OF LAW:
The issue before the Board is whether or not the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment. The Board must first determine whether or not the claimant left his job voluntarily. Then the Board must determine if the claimant has just cause for leaving his employment, that is, considering all circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving.

The Board finds that the claimant quit his permanent job with NMV Lumber and then worked for seasonal berry picking work with Parsat Enterprises. This does not constitute just cause, however admirable it was for him to choose to work and live close to his ad his wife's family so that his wife can get assistance and he can have less driving distance to Sunny Hill Hospital, these do not constitute just cause for voluntary separation from work. The Board finds as fact that the claimant has not proven that his circumstances were such that he had no choice but to voluntarily leave his employment from NMV Lumber. Further, it follows that since the claimant has not left his employment with just cause, he has insufficient hours to receive EI Benefits from his seasonal employment with Parsat Enterprises.

The claimant now appeals to an Umpire. He maintains that he needed to move to Abbotsford due his son's serious health problems. In his letter of appeal (exhibit 12.1) he states that his son sometimes became out of control and his wife could not control him alone. They moved because they needed held from their extended family. Mr. Tiwana has submitted an application for a supervision order that was sought in Merritt (exhibit 12.3) which was the result of the problems they were having with the child.

My attention is drawn to exhibit 14.1 which is a letter from a Child Protection, Social Worker who was involved with the family while they were living in Merritt. It reads as follows:

I am writing this letter at the request of Ranvir Tiwana. The Ministry for Children and Family Development became involved with the Tiwana family while they were living in Merritt, due to some child protection concerns. The family moved to Abbotsford in August 2005 and the file was recently transferred to the Abbotsford office. It is my understanding that the family felt that they needed to move to Abbotsford, so they could have more family support in helping them provided care and respite for their son, who has special needs. The family felt under a lot of pressure and stress while living in Merritt due to MCFD involvement, the pregnancy of Kashmir Tiwana and the lack of family support available to them. The family is doing much better since they have moved to Abbotsford as they have the support of their extended family.

The term "just cause" is not defined in the legislation. Paragraph 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act lists certain examples of circumstances which may constitute just cause however, these examples are not exhaustive and a Board of Referees and an Umpire are to have regard to all of the circumstances of each individual case in determining whether just cause exists. The definition of the term is a question of law, however the definition is not so exact that it is always possible to say with certainty whether a claimant has left his employment without just cause and therefore cases may arise which may be decided one way or the other without doing injury to the legal concept of just cause (Tanguay v. C.E.I.C., [1985] F.C.J. No. 910 (F.C.A.)).

In this case, there are clearly unique circumstances which could be said to constitute just cause. The claimant's reasons for leaving his employment are more than simply personal reasons, such as dissatisfaction with remuneration or the desire to find a better job. On the contrary, this was a decision made on the basis of serious problems within his family which left him with no alternative but to relocate in order to be with extended family.

The Board failed to take into account all of the relevant facts in making its decision. For this reason, its decision is set aside and the claimant's appeal is allowed.

Paul Rouleau

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
November 24, 2006