CUB 76930

CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-250-11

IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

and

in the matter of a claim for benefits by
G.Q.

and

IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Canada Employment
Insurance Commission from a decision of a Board of Referees given at
Saint John, New Brunswick, on October 27, 2010

DECISION

Did Mr. G.Q. voluntarily leave his employment without just cause, that is, was leaving the only reasonable alternative? The Board concluded there was just cause for leaving and allowed Mr. G.Q.’s appeal. The Commission now says the Board erred in not properly addressing the test for just cause, that is, the Board’s analysis fell short.

The claimant said he left his job to care for his sister, a single mother, who was having serious health issues. He was the only one in his immediate family who was available to provide this care.

The Board finds as a fact that due to rendering assistance to his sister. The Claimant had just cause for leaving his employment up until the time he commenced his training course.

The Board also finds as a fact that due to rendering assistance to his sister, and thus leaving his employment with just cause, the second issue before the Board becomes a nullity.

The Board finds as a fact that the Claimant consulted counsellors, followed the directions given and cooperated with them fully and still finds himself, through no fault of his own, in jeopardy of not getting EI support for his continuing education.

The Board found, factually and based on the evidence before it that the claimant left work to care for his ill sister. It accepted the evidence of the claimant and his mother. Section 29(c)(v) says:

just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment (...) exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving (...) having regard to all the circumstances including (...)

obligation to care for (...) a member of the immediate family (...). Just cause is not defined in the Act but the various subsections to Section 29(c) do compel a Board to have regard to all the circumstances of a particular situation to see whether just cause exists.

Here, while the Board might have provided a more detailed analysis, it is evident from it’s brief reasons that it believed the claimant left his work to look after his ill sister and, impliedly, there was no reasonable alternative as their parents were either working out of town or were engaged in full-time work. Simply because the Board did not track the words of the statute does not mean its analysis was faulty. These are questions of mixed law and fact. The Board’s conclusions must be reasonable, as that word has been defined. On the evidence before it I cannot say the Board’s determinations were unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission’s appeal is dismissed.