Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement (8:VII): Difference between revisions
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement (8:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 23:01, 7 August 2016
, 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. | ||
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. | |||
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. | ||
