CUB 61937

GUY GOULARD, Umpire

The claimant established a claim for benefits effective August 24, 2003. The Commission determined that the claimant left his employment with Larsen Logging Ltd without just cause and imposed an indefinite disqualification effective August 25, 2003.

The claimant appealed the Commission's decision to a Board of Referees which dismissed the appeal. He appealed the Board's decision. This appeal was heard in Gander, Newfoundland & Labrador on September 27, 2004. The claimant was present.

The reason given by the claimant for leaving his employment in Saskatchewan was that he had to return home to Newfoundland to care of his sick parents. He stated that his father suffered from a number of health problems and needed help. His sibling were married and also living out of province. He was single and felt that he had to come home to assist his parents. He stated that once he was closer to home to care for his parents, he would look for work and would be available. He stated that this would allow him to at least care for his parents on weekends and when he was not working. The claimant submitted a note from a doctor stating that he returned from Saskatchewan to help his father due to his medical condition.

In his letter of appeal to the Board, the claimant described his father's medical problems and explained why his parents needed someone to help them. He felt obligated to come home to assist them.

The claimant appeared before the Board which reviewed the Commission's written submissions. The Board simply stated that the claimant had quit his employment for personal reasons to come home and care for his parents who were in poor health. The Board noted that the claimant had admitted that he did not have medical evidence stating that he was required to come home. The Board concluded that in the absence of medical documentation as to why the claimant was requested to come home, it concurred with the decision of the Commission.

On appeal, the claimant reiterated that his parents' health condition required his presence and that he was the only one who could be of assistance. In reply to the Commission's submissions that he should have looked for work in Newfoundland before leaving his employment in Saskatchewan or that he could have attempted to find help from others rather than leave his employment, the claimant stated that it would not have been possible to do a work search from that far away as employment in Newfoundland is already difficult to find, as is finding assistance to help with elderly people with special needs.

Paragraph 29(c)(v) of the Employment Insurance Act provides as follows:

29(c) just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of the following:

(v) obligation to care for a child or a member of the immediate family,

Subsection 114(3) of the Employment Insurance Act requires that the Board's decision must include a statement of the findings of the Board on the issue of facts. That section reads:

114(3) A decision of a board of referees shall be recorded in writing and shall include a statement of the findings of the board on questions of fact material to the decision.

In the Parks decision (A-321-97) Mr. Justice Strayer wrote:

"We are all in agreement that the Board erred in law in failing to comply adequately with subsection 79(2). Specifically we are of the view that it was incumbent on the Board to state, at least briefly, that it rejected critical parts of the evidence of the applicant on grounds of credibility, and why it did so."

Furthermore, the Board could not ignore the provisions of paragraph 29(c)(v) of the Act. Notwithstanding the Commission's submissions, it has never been established that a claimant cannot support his argument that he quit his employment to care for a family member without providing a medical certificate that this was required. In this case the claimant did provide a doctor's note stating that he had come home to help his father due to his medical condition. The claimant had described at length the health problems encountered by his father. The Board could not simply disregard this evidence. It could have rejected it but had to explain why it did so. It is well established in the jurisprudence that claimants can establish just cause for leaving employment due to an obligation to care for a family member (CUB 24092 - care of husband, CUB 27205 - care of brother, CUB 20781 - care of sister). The entire circumstances must be taken into consideration in determining if the claimant has established that this was the reason why he quit his employment. In this case, I am satisfied that the claimant had done so. In regards to the lack of reasonable alternatives, I find that it would have been difficult to seek other employment from where he was working and that finding help for his parents would likely also have been as difficult.

I am satisfied that the claimant had shown just cause for leaving his employment.

Accordingly, the Board's decision is set aside and the claimant's appeal is allowed.

GUY GOULARD

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
October 18, 2004