Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (A-65-12)
TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
C.T.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission
from the decision of a Board of Referees given on
November 23, 2010, at Quebec City, Quebec.
JACQUES BLANCHARD, Umpire
Did the Board of Referees err by allowing the claimant’s appeal concerning his disentitlement from receiving Employment Insurance benefits? The Employment Insurance Commission (the Commission) believes so and thus appeals to the Umpire.
The claimant voluntarily left one of his two part-time employments, a job that he held from June 13, 2009, to February 1, 2010 (Exhibit 3). The job was part-time and he worked on call (Exhibit 4). The claimant wanted to take an academic training program, which ran from January 25, 2009, to June 25, 2009 (Exhibit 5).
The claimant held his second employment from July 1, 2009, to July 18, 2010, and he left to start working full-time again elsewhere on August 30, 2010.
The Commission determined that the claimant voluntarily left his first employment without just cause within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act) and that he failed to accumulate enough hours of insurable employment to be entitled to receive benefits.
The Board of Referees did not analyze the claimant’s decision to voluntarily leave his first employment.
Maybe the Board should have done so. However, the dates of the academic training program do not coincide with the dates of the employment period.
Did the Board of Referees make an obvious error that could result in a review of its decision?
The Umpire does not believe so, because the Commission focused exclusively on the claimant’s first job and failed to take into account his second job when calculating the insurable hours.
The claimant’s two employments had to be addressed separately, which the Commission failed to do (A-61-94).
The Commission referred to the claimant’s decision to voluntarily leave his first employment and made incorrect findings.
For these reasons, the Employment Insurance Commission’s appeal is dismissed.
Jacques Blanchard
UMPIRE
Quebec City, Quebec
December 23, 2011