In the Matter of the Employment Insurance Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 23
- and -
In the Matter of a claim for unemployment benefits by
Dianne Pellerin
- and -
In the Matter of an Appeal by the Claimant from the decision of a Board of
Referees given at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia on August 9, 2001
Appeal heard at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia on May 17, 2002
R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:
Ms. Pellerin appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees dismissing her appeal from a ruling of the Commission that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had voluntarily left an employment without just cause.
Ms. Pellerin, who is in her early 50s, has a story that is not uncommon. She moved from Nova Scotia to take a job in Edmonton, Alberta in November 2000. She earned about $320 weekly. She lived with her sister where she paid for her food but not for her room. Her income was not enough for her to rent her own place and keep up with her living expenses. She did not intend or want the arrangement with her sister to be permanent. She owned a home in Nova Scotia and her children are there. She found her situation in Alberta emotionally stressful.
The Board of Referees said:
In this case the claimant was working 38 hours a week in Alberta and living with her sister. She indicated on Exhibit 9-1 and Exhibit 11-1 that she was having difficulties in Alberta maintaining her financial obligations and that she was experiencing emotional stress being so far from her home in Larry's River. The claimant noted she conducted a job search prior to quitting her job in Alberta (Exhibit 11-2) by contacting an employer in Larry's River and by checking the Internet. In CUB 18995,
". . . The test of whether one voluntarily leaves a job without just cause is essentially that of whether a reasonably (sic) prudent person would have done so in the circumstances. It has been held many times that a reasonably (sic) prudent person does not leave one job without finding another one unless circumstances at the existing job are impossible, intolerable, or dangerous."
The claimant, in this case, appears to have made a personal choice to quit and move home. The Employment Insurance fund was established to provide temporary assistance to all those who through no fault of their own find themselves suddenly unemployed. Unfortunately the claimant has not proven "just cause" as defined by the Employment Insurance Act.
The Board of Referees erred in law in relying on the statement of an umpire that "It has been held many times that a reasonable prudent person does not leave one job without finding another one unless circumstances at the existing job are impossible, intolerable, or dangerous." and on the statement that "The Employment Insurance fund was established to provide temporary assistance to all those who through no fault of their own find themselves suddenly unemployed."
The test for determining whether one has voluntarily left an employment without just cause is defined in paragraph 29(c) of the Act where it is provided that just cause exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances.
The Board of Referees erred in law by failing to apply that test and consider Ms. Pellerin's economic circumstances. It was not realistic for her to remain in Edmonton. As I have said in other cases, particularly CUBs 35229 and 46437, "One need not cross Dickens's line between happiness and misery to reach the point at which she has just cause to leave employment at minimal income."
The appeal is allowed and the disqualification is set aside.
RONALD C. STEVENSON
Umpire
FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
June 3, 2002