Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement (8:VII)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks

Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement (8:VII) (view source)

Revision as of 23:01, 7 August 2016

527 bytes removed ,  23:01, 7 August 2016
→‎a) Statute & Case Law
Line 121: Line 121:
*xiv) such other reasonable circumstances as are prescribed.  
*xiv) such other reasonable circumstances as are prescribed.  


Bill C-23 amended s 29(c)(ii) by adding “common law partner”. The definition of “common law partner” has also been added to s 2(1) and defined as a person who could be of the same sex “with whom the claimant has lived in a conjugal relationship for at least one year”.  
To date, the only prescribed circumstance under s 29(c)(xiv) is ''EI Regulations'' s 51. This states that leaving employment when the employer is downsizing the business and the claimant’s decision preserves the employment of another worker does constitute just cause.  


To date, the only prescribed circumstance under s 29(c)(xiv) is ''EI Regulations'' s 51. This states that leaving employment when the employer is downsizing the business and the claimant’s decision preserves the employment of another worker does constitute just cause. This regulation reverses the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in ''Tanguay et al. v Unemployment Insurance Commission'' (1985), 10 C.C.E.L. 239 (F.C.A.), which is still quoted as the leading  authority on the general meaning of just cause. According to cases decided before Bill C-21 (1990) was introduced, and under the old ''Unemployment Insurance Act'', for a claimant to prove just cause, he or she must show:  
According to cases decided before Bill C-21 (1990) was introduced, and under the old ''Unemployment Insurance Act'', for a claimant to prove just cause, he or she must show:  
*a) a genuine grievance, or other acceptable reason for leaving the employment;  
*a) a genuine grievance, or other acceptable reason for leaving the employment;  
*b) proof of taking all reasonable steps to alleviate the grievance; and  
*b) proof of taking all reasonable steps to alleviate the grievance; and  
*c) proof of a search for alternate employment before the termination, unless circumstances are so immediate that a proper search is impossible.  
*c) proof of a search for alternate employment before the termination, unless circumstances are so immediate that a proper search is impossible.  


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.
LSLAP
5,109

edits

Retrieved from "https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/30593"