In the Matter of the Employment Insurance Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 23
and
In the Matter of a claim for unemployment benefits by
Fiona Corby
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given at Oshawa, Ontario on March 18, 2004
Appeal heard at Toronto, Ontario on October 21, 2004
DECISION
R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:
The Commission appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees allowing Ms. Corby's appeal from its ruling that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause.
The Board of Referees correctly identified the test to be applied in such cases, i.e. whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving. Paragraph 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act enumerates several specific circumstances for which regard may be had including "significant change in work duties."
The Board of Referees found that Ms. Corby's employer had significantly changed her work duties, specifically that her travel load was increased from three to five weeks during her first year of employment to 12 out of 16 weeks in the first four months of 2004. The Board noted that Ms. Corby had endeavoured to resolve the matter with her supervisors and had instituted a job search three months before leaving her employment. It concluded she had demonstrated just cause for leaving.
Whether one has just cause to voluntarily leave an employment is a question of mixed fact and law and the question for the umpire is whether the Board, on the record before it, reached a decision that was unreasonable. In my view the decision of the board was not unreasonable.
I cannot find that the Board of Referees erred in law or in principle or that it based its decision on any erroneous finding of fact.
The Commission's appeal is dismissed.
Ronald C. Stevenson
Umpire
FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
November 1, 2004