5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement (8:VII)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement (8:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 22:59, 7 August 2016
, 22:59, 7 August 2016→a) Statute & Case Law
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
Whether the employees had “just cause” for leaving his or her employment is decided with statutes and case law. | Whether the employees had “just cause” for leaving his or her employment is decided with statutes and case law. | ||
Sections 29(c)(i) – (xiv) of the ''EI Act'' provide a list of the circumstances that can constitute “just cause”. This list is neither exhaustive nor conclusive. In other words, circumstances not described in s 29(c) can also be just cause if they satisfy the main definition in s 29(c). On the other hand, circumstances listed in s 29(c)(i) –(xiv) will not be considered “just cause” if the conditions in s 29(c) are not met (if, for example, the claimant had a reasonable alternative). | Sections 29(c)(i) – (xiv) of the ''EI Act'' provide a list of the circumstances that can constitute “just cause”. This list is '''neither exhaustive nor conclusive'''. In other words, circumstances not described in s 29(c) can also be just cause if they satisfy the main definition in s 29(c). On the other hand, circumstances listed in s 29(c)(i) –(xiv) will not be considered “just cause” if the conditions in s 29(c) are not met (if, for example, the claimant had a reasonable alternative). | ||
Under s 29(c), just cause includes: | Under s 29(c), just cause includes: | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
In ''Canada v Hernandez'', 2007 FCA 320 the claimant was disqualified for quitting his job after a public health nurse advised him that the silica dust which was a main material in the factory was a carcinogen. The court decided he did not exhaust his alternatives because he should have asked the employer to change its business or find him a new job somewhere else. While this case is an aberration, it shows the importance of being able to prove that the worker did everything possible to avoid quitting. | In ''Canada v Hernandez'', 2007 FCA 320 the claimant was disqualified for quitting his job after a public health nurse advised him that the silica dust which was a main material in the factory was a carcinogen. The court decided he did not exhaust his alternatives because he should have asked the employer to change its business or find him a new job somewhere else. While this case is an aberration, it shows the importance of being able to prove that the worker did everything possible to avoid quitting. | ||
There are thousands of decisions by the Umpires, SST and Federal Court of Appeal addressing “just cause” issues that may help determine whether just cause existed (see [[Social Security Tribunal Overview (8:XIII)#D. Umpire’s Decision is Final | Section XIII.D: Umpire’s Decision is Final]]). CUB 21681 (23 Sept. 1992) confirms that just cause may result from all of the circumstances together, although no single factor would be sufficient: “When the statute says ‘having regard to all the circumstances’, it imposes a consideration of the totality of the evidence.” Thus, if the claimant’s reason for leaving is not one of the enumerated factors under s 29 but the claimant feels that they had no reasonable alternative to quitting or that they were fired without committing intentional misconduct, a case could still be made that the totality of the claimant’s circumstances gives rise to just cause. | There are thousands of decisions by the Umpires, SST and Federal Court of Appeal addressing “just cause” issues that may help determine whether just cause existed (see [[Social Security Tribunal Overview (8:XIII)#D. Umpire’s Decision is Final | Section XIII.D: Umpire’s Decision is Final]]). CUB 21681 (23 Sept. 1992) confirms that just cause may result from all of the circumstances together, although no single factor would be sufficient: “When the statute says ‘having regard to all the circumstances’, it imposes a consideration of the totality of the evidence.” Thus, if the claimant’s reason for leaving is not one of the enumerated factors under s 29 but the claimant feels that they had no reasonable alternative to quitting or that they were fired without committing intentional misconduct, a case could still be made that the totality of the claimant’s circumstances gives rise to just cause. | ||
==== b) Importance of Evidence ==== | ==== b) Importance of Evidence ==== | ||
