Voluntary Leaving Employment



Antagonistic Relationship

CUB 42400 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that the job responsibilities were excessive and it got to the point were he found the pressure unbearable. The claimant tried to rectify the situation with his two bosses but nothing became of it. The claimant wrote the following for the purpose of appealing the Board's decision:

"I could no longer agree with my bosses on anything. I could not put up with it any more. I have been working under tremendous stress for the past few days. I could no longer continue working under those conditions."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean-Paul Talbot
Date: 1998

CUB 47001 Umpire Decision - When the employee was explained the difficulties she was having in her work, the employer rather than suggesting some way to improve matters simply placed her before a fait accompli stating: "If you're not happy, you can leave; it's as simple as that." It is obvious that she was not satisfied. She was left with no other option but to leave. The claimant points out that her employer did not have confidence in her. She had discussed her various problems with him without result. She requested salary raises and help. The employer then hired a supervisor who, far from easing her work, made it even more complicated by all sorts of irritants. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Danielle Mongeau
Date: 1999

CUB 48580 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit her employment due to an unfriendly and unhappy workplace environment. The Board of Referees found that the claimant clearly had friction with her fellow employees and with her employer throughout her five years of employment. It also found that she had alternatives to quitting, including seeking another job before quitting. The Board erred in law when it proceeded to determine the latter issue without first determining whether the claimant was primarily responsible for the antagonism. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Karima Dossani
Date: 2000

CUB 50186 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed as a typesetter and after the first month of employment he was criticized for his job performance and humiliated by the employer in the presence of other employees. On two occasions the employer threatened to fire the claimant. His hours of work were frequently reduced by the employer and his hours given to other employees. The claimant suffered verbal mistreatment; he was yelled at by his employer and abused with foul language. The atmosphere in which the claimant worked had become hostile, antagonistic and intolerable. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gene Edades
Date: 2000

CUB 55283 Umpire Decision - The employer indicated his concern that his former employees were accepting employment from a competitor, expecting to be laid off shortly and then apply for benefits. The employer indicated that there was no slow down time at his trucking company and that the claimant would still have employment if he hadn't left. The claimant stated that the working conditions at B. Reynolds Trucking were unfit because of the verbal abuse and the mind games of the employer. The Commission did consider the fact that there would be brief downtime and that the new employer confirmed that this would be of short duration. In this case the claimant was unhappy at his employment and took the reasonable steps that a reasonable person would do before leaving their employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Cory Goreham
Date: 2002

CUB 57358 Umpire Decision - The reason given by both the employer and claimant as to why the claimant quit was that there was no longer a trusting bond between the two women. The relationship was deteriorating and the last incident was that of a balance owing on a car. The claimant states that the employer refused to give her ten days to come up with the remaining money and that she could not continue to work for the employer. The Umpire states that the Board put aside the antagonistic relationship between the claimant and the employer and relied on one incident which is contrary to subsection 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Corine Wilson
Date: 2003

CUB 58184 Umpire Decision - The Board stated that they found nothing that they would classify the claimant's leave as just cause. The claimant made some very specific allegations about her employer, if these were to be proven then the claimant would have just cause. These allegations were not dealt with by the Board. During the hearing the claimant asked to have her employer absent from the meeting, but the Board stated that this could not be done. The claimant stated that she was unable to talk about her problems with her employer in the hearing room. During the hearing the employer was represented by three separate people from the company. While the employer has the right to be represented in the hearing, it does not give them the right to have three representatives and bring forth a front of intimidation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Brenda Mahoney
Date: 2003

CUB 60537 Umpire Decision - The facts of why the claimant left his employment include two incidents where one of the owners used abusive language towards him. The claimant stayed at his employment after the first incident because it had been resolved to his satisfaction. He had stated after this incident that he was not willing to accept that kind of abuse by his employer. On the second occasion, the claimant did not try to talk to his employer because the employer had been drinking. The claimant decided that he had no choice but to quit, so that is what he did. The Board's majority found that the claimant had just cause in leaving his employment because of the antagonism between him and his employer. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 60902 Umpire Decision - The reason the claimant gave for leaving his employment was discrimination, harassment or personal conflict at work. In exhibits before the Board, the claimant described in detail a number of incidents where his employer questioned his absences for which the claimant had valid reasons, such as having to attend doctor appointments, car repair and attending court. The claimant explained that he was a good employee but that the situation had become unbearable because he felt that his employer did not trust him. The majority did not address the claimant's explanation which clearly showed a situation of antagonism and even harassment. The Board's minority member however, found that the claimant had constituted just cause for leaving his employment. Umpire Goulard agreed with the minority member that the claimant had described a situation of antagonism and harassment by his employer. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ward Kendall
Date: 2004

CUB 61147A Umpire Decision - This is the second time the appeal has been before the Umpire. This matter first went before the Board on March 21, 2002, in that decision, the Board dismissed the claimant's appeal. They found that the claimant did not do what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances. No attempt was made to resolve the issue by other means and the claimant quit. As was found by the Board of Referees, the claimant had been called a liar and the board found that the claimant had just cause for quitting her employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Rosann Wellon
Date: 2005

CUB 62369 Umpire Decision - The claimant described the incident that led to her leaving her employment and the fear that she experienced by her employer. She was embarrassed and humiliated by the lack of courtesy accorded her by her employer. In agreement with the Minority, Umpire Haddad stated the following when bringing forth his decision:

"I find that the claimant did have a difficult meeting with Mr. Hayes with the result being she quit her job. She was treated with disrespect and could not get an answer to her request for a leave of absence. Although this appears to be the only antagonistic incident, I believe it was serious enough to destroy the employer/employee relationship to the point where the claimant had to leave. I find there was just cause under Sections 29(c)(x) of the E.I. Act."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Olga Ortiz
Date: 2004

CUB 62597 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed at a life insurance company, and she had been in conflict with her supervisor and this ended up with the claimant being yelled at by her supervisor in front of her co-workers. Immediately following this, a meeting was arranged with the manager, during this, the claimant felt that she was treated unfairly and wasn't given the chance to explain her side of the story. Following this meeting, the claimant sent an email to her supervisor stating her resignation. Following the resignation, the claimant tried to withdraw it and spoke to her manager who told her that the matter would be looked into. But by the time that the matter was looked into, Human Resources had already processed it. The Board found that the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment because of the antagonism with her supervisor. They also found that the law provided just cause for voluntarily leaving if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB: 65137 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit her job, due to an antagonistic relationship with her supervisor which was affecting her health. She would not be allowed to take her vacation leave and when she requested such an absence to visit her ill mother in Poland, the employer refused. She stated that whenever she took time off her employer would criticize her upon her return. The final incident was when the employer made her pay for a cellular telephone bill then she was covering for another employee on vacation and she had more calls than usual. She further indicated that she always felt threatened with dismissal because every time a conflict occurred her supervisor would tell her "you have to choose between this problem and your bread and butter". The employer appealed the Commission's decision to a Board of Referees. The employer's appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Immigrant Women Services Ottawa Date: 2006

CUB 66311 Umpire Decision - The claimant developed an antagonistic relationship with his new manager. He attempted to resolve his concerns with the area manager but was not successful. The Board of Referees found that the claimant did have a reasonable alternative to leaving his employment and dismissed his appeal. The Umpire found that the Board of Referees did not make any finding as to whether or not there was antagonism between the claimant and the manager, or if there was, whether the claimant was not primarily responsible for it. The Board also ignored the fact that the claimant had made several approaches to the area manager for a resolution of his problems. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Devon Liggatt
Date: 2006

CUB 66460 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he left his employment because of the verbal and physical aggressive behavior of the employer towards him. He stated that he had been assaulted before by his employer. He had reported the latest incident to the police. He added that his employer was a big strong individual and that he feared him because he had an anger management problem. The employer basically denied the claimant's allegations and stated that the claimant was an aggressive person who had been involved in fights with other employees in the past. The employer added that the claimant was a good employee at first but later developed an attendance problem. The Board found that the claimant and the employer had equally balanced credible weight and gave the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. The Umpire found that in the present case, the Board was faced with evidence of comparable weight and pursuant to subsection 49(2) of the Act; the claimant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Herwynen Saw Mill Ltd.
Date: 2006

CUB 68644 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment because the employer was being unreasonable in regards to her medical condition, Lupus, which had caused her to call in saying she could not work her shift. The employer then called her later to see if she could work the evening shift and when she said she couldn't then informed her that her shifts had been arbitrarily changed. The claimant also alleged that the employer made negative comments about her being away from work a lot. The Umpire felt there was no doubt that there was stress and friction in the work relationship and the employer may have wanted to get rid of her. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 69365 Umpire Decision - The claimant had voluntarily left his employment due to discrimination faced at work which he felt was contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act and as well as working conditions that were dangerous to health and safety. The Commission felt that the claimant could have talked to management with regards to his problems about racial tension. With respect to safety, the Commission also felt that the claimant could have brought up these matters with the management instead of simply leaving his employment. In the documentation, the claimant stated that there was no one else to discuss his concerns other than the team leader with whom he was having difficulty with. The Umpire concluded that the supervisor must have known that the claimant was having difficulties and dissatisfaction with the working conditions and it appears that he was the cause of most of the claimant's problems. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 69771 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit because he had worked eight weeks of night shift and he was missing hours of work because of machine breakdowns as well as the fact that the claimant was being paid less that the other employees. There appeared to be a clash of personalities and the employer did not treat the claimant in the same way as the rest of the employees. The Board in their decision noted the undeniable existence of animosity between the employer and the employee and the significant difference in pay between the claimant and other workers. There was also the unexplained issue of the claimant having to work eight weeks on night shifts. The Umpire interpreted this as punishment from the employer for the existing antagonism. There was also no evidence to show that the claimant was responsible for the antagonism. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB-72485- The claimant had completed the training for promotion to a supervisor’s position but was not promoted. The claimant had a conflicting and antagonistic relationship with a supervisor. The claimant left her employment after a meeting with the District Manager in which she was told she would not be promoted. A transfer to a different location would not have solved the problems with the supervisor, thus the claimant was put into a position where she felt her only alternative was to quit her job. The Umpire rescinded the decision of the Board because they made no reference to antagonistic relationship which was referred to in the docket and also failed by not making any reference to credibility of the appellant. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

CUB 78654Umipre Decision - The claimant stated that she was often threatened with dismissal by her immediate supervisor. This affected her health and she was treated for depression. She eventually left her employment. The claimant did not complain of her situation to senior supervisors, the claimant feared the loss of her job and difficulties obtaining references. The Board found that the claimant did suffer stress caused by the antagonism of the employer. Constant threats of dismissal are just cause for voluntarily leaving. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2012

Applicability - Unauthorized Leave of Absence

CUB 44886 Umpire Decision - The claimant is a native of Sri Lanka who has lived in Canada for several years. In early 1997 his family asked him to go to Sri Lanka because his father was seriously ill. He asked for a leave of absence but his employer was only prepared to let him take 3 weeks of vacation that were due to him. On Feb.19 he sent his employer a fax from Colombo advising he was unable to return to work on Feb.24 and asked for a month's extension. There is no evidence of any reply from the employer. The claimant could not get to Jaffia until March 26. After he arrived there he was repeatedly arrested by the military forces over a period of two weeks. He encountered further difficulties with his return travel arriving in Colombo on May 15 and in Toronto on June 3. His employer had terminated his employment in his absence. The claimant did not leave his employment. His employment was terminated when he did not return. His failure to return was involuntary. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kamalarajan Selvarajah
Date: 1999

CUB-73053- The employer of the claimant assumed that he had abandoned his job when he did not show up for work when he was called in on a temporary contract. The claimant maintains that he called in to report that he was unable to work and spoke with someone on the phone who said that they would relay the message. The claimant did not show up for work the following day either as he assumed that they would have found someone else to do the job. The employer maintains that when the claimant did not show up for work that he abandoned his job. The Umpire is satisfied that the Board erred in failing to consider that the claimant had already been laid off and was not employed at the time he did not turn up for work for two days offered by his former employer. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

CUB 76240 Umipre Decision - The claimant was hired with an agreement between him and the employer for a 3-week holiday period. One week before the holiday period was to begin, the employer told the claimant that if he took the holiday he would be fired. Because the claimant had already booked airline tickets, it was too late to change his plans, and therefore he left on his holiday. The Board found that the pre-existing agreement between the employer and the claimant did exist and it allowed for the 3-week holiday and therefore the claimant did not breach the terms of the pre-employment agreement. As the employer did not apprise the claimant of the changes in the agreement, and waited until the last minute to make his demand. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2010

Benefit of the Doubt

CUB 57228 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment due to significant changes in his duties. The Commission states that the originally reason given by the claimant for quitting his job was to return to school and not significant changes in work duties. The claimant states that he quit his job to return to school because of the changes of work duties and that he saw no advancement in the job. The Umpire agreed with the claimant that one could come to the conclusion, after significant changes in work duties, to quit a job when one realized that there was no future growth for the individual in the present employment. The Commission's appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Mark Harlick
Date: 2003

CUB 62871 Umpire Decision - The claimant, who resided in Saskatoon in the spring season of 1999, accepted employment with a company from Winnipeg, at an annual salary of $35,000. One of the terms of the claimant's employment was that he was entitled to three weeks of holidays, annually, as long as they were not taken consecutively. On July 4, 2003 the claimant was given is annual vacation pay and found that he was being paid only for two weeks instead of three. When he asked about his week of missing vacation pay, an argument arose between him and his employer, and the end result of that argument was that claimant's employment being terminated. The employer stated that the claimant quit, while the claimant contends that he was dismissed. In the Board's decision, they felt that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the claimant in regards to the decision that he was terminated from his employment, and had not quit. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Gatewest Coin Ltd.
Date: 2005

CUB 68111 Umpire Decision -The claimant said she had been told by her employer not to report to work because she was not accepting a demotion while the employer's position was that the claimant had left her job because she was not satisfied with her potential for job growth in her position. The Board reviewed the statements and evidence presented by the claimant and her employer and came to the conclusion that the evidence was equally credible. The Umpire supported the conclusion of the Board of Referees by referring to Subsection 49(2) of the Employment Insurance Act which states that if the evidence is balanced the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Transport Training Centres of Canada Inc.
Date: 2007

Care for a Child

CUB 27469 Umpire Decision - The claimant admitted she voluntarily left her employment as she was unable to obtain adequate child care. Her husband's employment required him to be available seven days a week with the possibility of working between the hours of 4:30 and 6:00 pm from December to March. The claimant was required to work until 6:00 pm two nights per week and her care giver would only babysit until 5:30 pm. The claimant was unable to obtain another care giver and her employer would not consider a change in her working schedule or hours. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Mary-Catherine Marcellus
Date: 1995

CUB 38050 Umpire Decision - The claimant moved to a new city to be closer to her child. Her child was living with his father at that time. The Umpire found that the Board erred in law by ignoring the claimant's family circumstances. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Adriana Moga
Date: 1997

CUB 43131A Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed as a cafeteria attendant. She normally worked the shift from 2:30 pm to 11:30 pm. Her principal reason for leaving was because the employer frequently assigned her to the 7:00 am shift without adequate notice. The claimant has three young children and it was a problem for her to leave home early in the morning for that shift. The Board characterized her problem as follows:

"Her main complaint with scheduling was the demand of the employer that she fills in on day shifts on her days off without adequate notice and with insufficient rest time between shifts."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Veronica Cuff
Date: 1999

CUB 47395 Umpire Decision - The claimant moved to Ontario with her husband and two young children in 1997, and began working as a production worker in April 1998. Following the subsequent separation of Ms. Young and her husband the claimant was attempting to juggle full-time work and care for her two children in a new community without the help of family or friends. As a result, due to reasons which include both her personal health and the care of her children she left her work and returned to St. George, Newfoundland. While the Board adequately dealt with the issue of medical necessity in its decision, it failed to consider the claimant's arguments with respect to the family stress caused by the separation, and the need to take action to properly care for the well being of her two children. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Doreen Young
Date: 2000

CUB 47494 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job because his wife left him and he was alone to care for their 4 month old child. The Board failed to consider some material factors leading to the claimant's decision to leave his job. He was unable to make arrangements for anyone to care for his child as he had no friends or family to assist him and he could not afford to hire a babysitter on the money he was earning...the claimant ought not to be faulted for not having thought of a leave of absence and, it seems, the employer did not make it known to him that that kind of relief was available (claimant was not in his country of origin). The situation in which the claimant was left was beyond his control because of his obligation to care for his child. He was in no position to seek new employment. Eventually the claimant left Vancouver and moved to Kelowna to accept an offer from a friend to live with him, rent free, and they would try and look after his baby. The Umpire concludes the claimant had no other reasonable alternative but to remain home to care for his child. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Demelash Garza
Date: 1999

CUB 47727 Umpire Decision - Claimant was granted maternity leave. Claimant applied for UI and an initial claim for maternity and parental benefits was established. It was the intention of the claimant at that time to resume her employment at the expiration of her parental benefits. Instead claimant, who gave birth to twins, left her employment voluntarily and filed for regular benefits. The claimant was already the mother of an infant child when her twins arrived. She quit her job because of the pay, the stress of the job and the responsibility of having to care for three children. The Umpire accepts the claimant's assertion that it was not feasible for her to return to work following the birth of the twins. She had an obligation to care for her three children. She clearly had no choice. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Geraldine Scheideman
Date: 2000

CUB 48340 Umpire Decision - The claimant is a single mother with three young children. It appears the strain on the claimant from her work schedule caused a behavioural problem with her children. One of her children suffered from X* and was therefore suspended from school; another child was having a problem getting up in the morning and was consequently cranky at daycare. The claimant had little resources available to her and in light of the aforementioned problems she did the only thing she reasonably would be expected to do - left her employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Annette Miriguay
Date: 2000
* Protected information in accordance with Part 4 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act.

CUB 51580 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her job to care for her three young children. The claimant's husband and her sister were looking after the children while she was work. The situation changed after both her husband and her sister gained employment. Both her husband and sister had two days off a week each, the claimant asked her employer if she could only work the specific four days. The employer would not or could not accommodate her because of this her wages were less than the amount a babysitter would charge. The Board agreed that she quit her job because of her restrictions as to the shifts and days she could not work. They also agreed that she would have the same problem in any future employment. In similar cases there have been different views, for example in CUB 25397 Umpire Decision the Umpire said it was an important implication of paragraph 28(4)(e) of the Act. It is here that the law recognizes that it is legitimate to leave a job to care for a child if no other reasonable alternative exists. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jasvinder K. Basran
Date: 2001

CUB 52412 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment because she couldn't afford a babysitter on her salary. The claimant had worked for the employer for 8 ½ years and in that time only received a .50 cents per hour raise. The Commission determined that she did not demonstrate just cause for leaving her employment and that she did not explore all the options when it came to finding child care. The cost of a babysitter would have cost her anywhere from $5.00 to$5.50 an hour, this would have left her with virtually no income. The Umpire said the Board erred in law when looking at the facts, she could have continued to work and pay a babysitter but end up with an income close to zero. The only reasonable alternative was to quit and find employment that paid a higher wage. The Board failed to observe the principle of natural justice and did not base their decision on the facts before them. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sherry Gallant
Date: 2001

CUB 53175 Umpire Decision - The claimant filed for benefits after she indicated that she could not find a babysitter for her daughter. She indicated that she discussed her problem with her employer who offered her another shift but it was not convenient since her husband also works shifts. The claimant stated that she asked if she could come in late every third week, the employer denies this claim. The employer stated that claimant phoned in and quit, the claimant denies this and states that she spoke to the warehouse supervisor the day she quit. The Board found that the claimant was credible but felt that the issue could have been resolved with full and proper communication about her requirements for a sitter. In the oral evidence before the Umpire the claimant indicated that she was actively looking for a solution to her child care problem. The problem consisted of finding someone who could accompany her daughter to school one week out of three. She stated that it had only taken a day to find a solution to her problem and if her employer had cooperated for the extent of one day then she would still be employed. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Catherine Misener
Date: 2001

CUB 59861 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed by Ambassador Furniture for only five months when his mother-in-law, who provided the child care for his child, was suddenly hospitalized. The Commission felt that the children could have been placed in a care program before and after school or that the claimant could have tried to arrange a leave of absence from his employer. As for the suggestion that the claimant should try to arrange the leave of absence from his employer, the Umpire brings forth the decision from Umpire R.E. Salhany in CUB 48123 Umpire Decision. This state:

"There is no obligation upon a claimant who has an obligation to care for a family member to first seek a leave or absence from an employer."

There was evidence that the suggestion of day care was inappropriate for the claimant as a result of his culture. In his culture, children are cared for by family members, not by strangers. The question of reasonable alternatives that existed, this cannot be determined without regard to the claimant's cultural realities. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 62402 Umpire Decision - The Board had stated in their decision that the claimant had shown just cause because she left her employment to take care of her children and working irregular hours. The evidence before the Board shows that in the past the claimant's employer had changed her work schedule. As well, with respect to the situation at hand, the employer, realizing that the claimant had two children with speech difficulties, stated that she could have worked fewer hours but had chose not to, preferring to quit, since she was, according to employer, fatigued. In this case, after looking at the evidence and the claimant's state with her two children, Umpire Gobeil decided that the claimant had no other reasonable alternative but to leave her employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 67172 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her position as an office assistant, to keep an eye on her son who decided to hitchhike across Canada. She indicated that he is a street person and of dubious character. She further stated that at the time she relocated because she thought she had a job with Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design which did not materialize when she arrived. The employer did not indicate that it gave a definite offer of employment. The Umpire found that the claimant did have reasonable assurance of employment; the emails from Emily Carr Institute employees were extremely encouraging. The claimant also stated that she moved to Vancouver because her daughter and granddaughter were planning to move there. The claimant has a son who is a street person and who is suicidal. The Umpire also found that her desire to be near him so she could "keep an eye on him" was what any reasonable an prudent person would have done in the circumstances and it goes far beyond being a merely good personal reason for choosing to leave her employment and relocate. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Charmaine Malet-Veale
Date: 2006

CUB 67330 Umpire Decision - The claimant had quit his job as a laborer with NMV Lumber Ltd. in Merritt, B.C. on August 12, 2005. He then moved to Abbotsford and accepted a seasonal berry picking work but after two weeks was laid off. When asked why he gave up a permanent job to take a seasonal job that only lasted a few weeks, the claimant indicated that his work at the mill would have slowed down during the winter and he often went on employment insurance benefits anyway. He did not want to wait until he was laid off from the lumber yard as he did not want to take his children, 7 and 12 years old, out of school in the middle of the school year. He advised the Commission that the 7 year old has autism and gets special funding from the government. In his letter of appeal he stated that his son sometimes became out of control and his wife could not control him alone. They moved because they needed help from their extended family. The Umpire found that the claimant's reasons for leaving his employment were more than simply personal reasons. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ranvir Tiwana
Date: 2006

CUB 71389 Umpire Decision - After undergoing surgery and being on sick leave, the claimant's babysitter was no longer able to watch the claimant's children due to finding full-time work. The claimant was not able to find other childcare arrangements, and was not able to return to work for that reason. Although a claimant is not required to take a leave of absence when leaving work to care for family members, the Commission asserts that the claimant did have the reasonable alternative of taking a leave of absence. The Umpire could not find that the Board of Referees erred in its finding of fact. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Care for Family Member

CUB 27512 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment to look after his mother, who was in the terminal phase of cancer. The claimant had been a teacher from September 1, 1973 to April 9, 1991 at which time he left his employment to care for his terminally ill mother. The claimant had also intended to obtain another teaching position in the next school year. He stated that the situation at work (antagonistic relations with the principal) and his family problems in the last two years had become too much for him, which had led him to leave his employment. The appeal was allowed. Appellant: Jean-Pierre Daniel
Date: 1995

CUB 42689 Umpire Decision - The claimant resigned from her position to care for her mother who is an invalid and suffers from progressive multiple sclerosis; she therefore requires constant care. The claimant had been working six days a week and had no time to devote to her ailing mother. She was willing to accept full-time or part-time work, with a job that would allow her two consecutive days off a week, and was actively searching. It was found that the claimant needed to be close to home and available to relieve her father who was the sole caretaker of her very sick mother. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1998

CUB 44206 Umpire Decision - McAdam, New Brunswick is the claimant's hometown. Her mother who is 69 years of age lives there and her health is declining. The claimant decided to leave her job to return to McAdam to care for her mother. Her mother lives alone and had been in hospital during the previous two winters. She said she had decided to reside with her mother and would be cooking meals, shopping, looking after her mother's medication, getting her to the doctor, looking after her finances, housekeeping, property maintenance etc. She also said she was looking for and expected to find a full time job. Although the claimant has siblings who live in the area they have families of their own and she is the only one who is available to care for her mother. The appeal was allowed
Appellant: Kimberly Godbout
Date: 1999

CUB 44281 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicated that he had left his employment because of family problems back in Newfoundland. The claimant stated that when he went to Alberta his daughter and spouse had remained in Newfoundland. His daughter missed him during his absence and felt that he did not love her. While he was in Alberta, the claimant and his spouse separated but upon his return to Newfoundland they reconciled. The claimant indicated that he "quit on the spur of the moment" and did not make any efforts to look for other work prior to leaving his job. The Board failed to observe a principle of natural justice...then claimant does not feel that he received a fair hearing because he knows many people who have come back home for no reason and who qualified for benefits. This is an unreasonable position and ignores the social policy considerations with respect to maintaining and accommodating the family unit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: William Hillier
Date: 1999

CUB 51189 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job to care for his natural mother, who he only met a year earlier, who was ill. The Board found that he had a valid personal reason to leave but it was not in pursuant to Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The claimant brought two decisions before the Board, CUB 35793 Umpire Decision and CUB 29760 Umpire Decision; both of these cases were presided over by Umpire Stevenson. Stevenson was quoted as saying:

"In the circumstances in which Miss McLean found herself, I am satisfied that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment in order to fulfil her filial obligations. It would be callous to suggest that the purchase of care for one's parent or parents is a reasonable alternative for a person in Miss McLean's situation."

In these cases Stevenson found that the necessary attendance to care for one's parent or parents was a just cause for leaving employment. In this case the claimant found himself in the position to provide care and transportation that could not be provided by his mother's husband, who was also ill. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: David Trask
Date: 2001

CUB 51898 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment to return to Newfoundland to care for his 17 year old daughter. The claimant's position was that he did have just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment because he needed to move with a dependant child and had reasonable assurance of employment. The Commission felt that there was a difference between wanting to care for someone and the situation where circumstances dictate leaving to care for someone. The Board disagreed and referenced CUB 43551 Umpire Decision where the circumstances are very similar. The claimant was concerned about the welfare of his child. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sean Parsons
Date: 2001

CUB 52536 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit her job to relocate to Ottawa to care for her father who is ill. The claimant, who is of Vietnamese origin, relocated to Ottawa after being asked by her mother, who is too frail to do so, to care for her father. Since the claimant is the only unmarried sibling of a family of 8, there is a Vietnamese cultural tradition for the unmarried daughter to care for her parents. In theory there were other alternative such as hiring a care worker or having the siblings who live in Ottawa have a shared care situation. There is no evidence that any of these alternatives would have worked because of the language barrier. In a similar case, CUB 29760 Umpire Decision, Justice Stevenson wrote:

"In the circumstances in which Miss McLean found herself, I am satisfied that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment in order to fulfil her filial obligations. It would be callous to suggest that the purchase of care for one's parent or parents is a reasonable alternative for a person in Miss McLean's situation".

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Hong-Luu Nguyen
Date: 2001

CUB 55657 Umpire Decision - The Board didn't mention or didn't take a position on any evidence that was presented before them. The Board took the position that the claimant left his employment to look after his mother. This referred to one of the ground given in section 29 of the Act. The Board found that in this case leaving his employment wasn't the only reasonable alternative available to the claimant. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean-Claude Mallet
Date: 2002

CUB 56569 Umpire Decision - The evidence shows that the claimant was hired in the understanding that he would work 15 days on followed by 6 days off. The claimant worked his 15 days but was recalled to work after only 4 days. When he requested the other 2 days off, the employer told him to report to work or he would lose his job. The claimant never returned to the job and thought that he had been dismissed while the employer thought that the claimant had quit his job. The claimant states that he could not return to work for it would cause undue hardship on his family. The claimant believed that the hearing at the Board of Referees dealt more with the issue of whether he quit or was dismissed and not with his obligations to his family. At the hearing before the Umpire the claimant stated that he believed his wife was dying of cancer and could not concentrate on his job which presented a safety hazard. The claimant also felt it was his duty to stay at home with his wife and children. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Hugh Bolton
Date: 2003

CUB 60223 Umpire Decision - The facts before the Board were that the claimant was employed by Crown Electric from November 2002 to January 2003. The claimant had left for Sri-Lanka for two months because his father was ill, during this leave his employer, Crown Electric, stated that they could not hold his job for such a long period. He stated that while he was on his two week vacation he was advised that his father was ill and had asked his employer for a twelve week leave of absence, the company refused and told him that he could not be laid off for more than two weeks. He was also told that he could call on his return and if there was any work they would take him back. The employer stated that the claimant had never called upon his return and that they were busy and that they would have taken him back. It was also brought forth that the claimant was offered work by the employer on several occasions but that the claimant had declined any work that was offered to him. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Crown Electric Limited
Date: 2004

CUB 60960 Umpire Decision - The claimant was the sole caregiver to her two young nieces who were placed with her after coming from an extremely disturbed home. The custody arrangements had not been formalized at the time of the Board hearing, the issues were still before the courts. Originally, the claimant was working day shifts at Wal-Mart but after Christmas 2002, her hours were cut substantially and she found herself working only four hours shifts, which were usually night shifts. The claimant was not employed in the same city that she resided, so at night she was required to drive the distance and incur the costs. She also had to hire a babysitter at night for the two girls, but after the costs of transportation and babysitting were deducted, the claimant was not coming out ahead by only working four hour shifts. As well, because of the girl's disturbed past, her failure to be there when the girls were home was creating difficulties for both her and the girls. The claimant spoke with her employer, but they were unable to make any accommodations or give her any indication of how long this situation would last. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Krista Embury
Date: 2004

CUB 61937 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that the reason he left Saskatchewan was that he had to return home to Newfoundland to care for his sick parents. He stated that his father suffered from a number of health problems and needed help. His siblings are also out of province but are all married. The Board concluded that in the absence of medical documentation as to why the claimant requested to come home, it concurred with the decision of the Commission. On the appeal, the claimant stated that his parent's health conditions required his presence and that he was the only one who could be of assistance. In regards to the Commission's submissions that he should have looked for work before he left Saskatchewan and his employment, the claimant stated that it would not have been possible to do a work search from that far away, as the employment in Newfoundland is already difficult to find, as is finding assistance to help with elderly people with special needs. 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. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: William Head
Date: 2004

CUB 71254 Umpire Decision - In order to care for his elderly mother, the claimant, his wife, and children moved from Ontario to New Brunswick. During the period between the claimant's father passing away and leaving his employment, the claimant made six trips to New Brunswick to care for his mother. The claimant's mother was unable to care for herself in a safe and healthy manner, and requested that her son come home to help her. There was no one else to care for the claimant's mother as there is a lack of home care and institutional services for the elderly in New Brunswick. Both the claimant and his wife stated the move was difficult on the family. They had conducted job searches prior to moving, and were both now working. The Umpire found that the claimant did what a reasonable person would in accordance with Paragraph 29(c)(v), and agreed with the minority member of the Board. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 70582 Umpire Decision - After her sister became ill, the claimant left her employment in Woodstock, Ontario to care for her sister in Nova Scotia. The Board did not consider paragraph 29(c)(v) which states that a claimant may leave their employment with just cause to care for a member of their immediate family. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 76930Umipre Decision - The claimant left his job to care for his sister (a single mother), who was having serious health issues. He was the only family member who was available. The Board found he had reason to leave his job and care for the sister up until the point where he took a training course. The claimant had consulted counsellors, followed their direction, and took training. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

Care for a Spouse

CUB 55493 Umpire Decision - The claimant, now 60 and a pipefitter who ordinarily resides in New Brunswick, was employed with a construction firm in Fort McMurray, Alta. from June 28 to July 31, 2001. The claimant left his job and returned home to New Brunswick because of serious health problems with his wife. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jack Watson
Date: 2002

Collective Agreement Rights

CUB 29458 Umpire Decision - On April 14, 1993 the claimant was informed by letter that she had been bumped from her position by a more senior employee. According to the lay-off and recall provisions of the Collective Agreement, an employee has the option of accepting an assignment to a new position or to take lay-off status. In this case the claimant decided for personal reasons that she was going to take the lay-off status. The Commission decided that since the claimant refused to accept the new position, which means that she voluntarily left her employment without just cause, the Commission disqualified her from receiving benefits pursuant to section 28(1) of the Act. The claimant is adamant that she was laid off and did not leave voluntarily. The point that is trying to be made is whether the claimant can rely on the Collective Agreement to decline a position or that by declining a position it is considered as leaving voluntarily. Umpire Haddad is quoted as saying:

"In my judgement - although the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to assist employees who are involuntarily separated from their employment it was not intended that the Act should vary or override the provisions of an agreement between employer and employee."

The claimant exercised her options by deciding not to be re-assigned. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1995

Constructive Dismissal

CUB 21854 Umpire Decision - The claimant left the employment because he was not being paid properly for the hours worked. He had complained about it and in his next pay period he was shorted again. The Umpire indicated under the circumstances one had just cause to leave employment if "one's employer is cheating on one's pay packet". The Umpire also indicated that someone in his situation should not be expected to make a complaint to the regulatory authorities before leaving their employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Roland St-Louis
Date: 1992

CUB 26245 Umpire Decision - The claimant got a new supervisor who apparently developed an apparent disliking to her. Frequent problems, accusations and incidents followed where the claimant was blamed and badgered about her work performance and experienced a reduction in hours of work. The Umpire found that there were significant modifications in the terms and conditions of employment respecting wages and salary and antagonistic relations between the employer and the employee for which the employee is not primarily responsible. He described the circumstances as "there is demonstrated here by the claimant a full package of ingredients of constructive dismissal". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Melanie Specula
Date: 1994

CUB 33370 Umpire Decision - The claimant claims that he was forced to leave his job because it had been changed from manager of the mailing department, manager of the traffic department and health and safety coordinator to manager of shipping and receiving only. When applying for benefits the claimant put on the application that he left for early retirement but the employer states that he was laid off due to department closure. The employer wrote a letter to the claimant outlining options of what was possible within the company. The claimant decided that he would take a severance pay out instead of taking a job that would have been a demotion but would still have the same salary and benefits. Evidence was submitted on behalf of the claimant that he had been constructively dismissed. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Vernon Fagan
Date: 1996

CUB 35206 Umpire Decision/ A-868-96 Umpire Decision - The reduction in the claimant's salary was not unilateral but had been negotiated by the employer with the union that represented her. As such the Board of Referees held that the claimant had just cause to leave because of the reduction in her salary. The Umpire had overturned the decision of the Board but on appeal to the Federal Court the Umpire decision was reversed. The appeal by the claimant was allowed by the Federal Court.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1996

CUB 37662 Umpire Decision -Faced with restructuring, the claimant was given the option of accepting severance or continuing to work at the same wage as part of a bridging program until the new pay scale (24.8% decrease) came into effect. The Umpire found this to be a significant reduction. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Stephen Klunowski
Date: 1997

CUB 43755 Umpire Decision - The claimant advised the Commission that her employer had been dissatisfied with her performance as manager and offered a demotion to assistant manager for $20,000 less in salary a year. Although she accepted the position, the claimant informed her employer that she would be taking legal action against it for constructive dismissal and this was the reason she had been fired. It was not until after the employer had been notified by the Commission that the claimant was entitled to benefits that it changed its position, alleging that she had actually been dismissed because of misconduct, namely, her performance as sales manager, her failure to meet sales quotas and her unwillingness to improve. Under the circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion is that the claimant's alleged misconduct was not the genuine reason for her dismissal but was "merely the excuse" for it. The evidence is clear that she was dismissed because of the constructive dismissal action she had commenced against her employer. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Catherine Warga
Date: 1999

CUB 46727 Umpire Decision - The appellant had been employed as an in-store baker for seven years prior to her leaving her job. She left after the employer restructured its operations and eliminated the position of baker. The claimant was offered employment in the store at reduced hours working in another department primarily as a short-order cook. The claimant's hours were reduced from 40 to a maximum of 28. The Umpire states that "a reduction in hours of this magnitude could constitute constructive dismissal and thus provide just cause for … leaving her employment". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Patricia Patterson
Date: 1999

CUB 50083 Umpire Decision - The minority of the Board found that the claimant had been constructively dismissed by the employer and had no reasonable alternative to leaving. Basically, the employer imposed new working conditions and duties upon the claimant. Faced with his hours of work being reduced, having to work new hours which conflicted with his other employment, a demotion and a three month probationary period the claimant was constructively dismissed. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Aaron Moser
Date: 2000

CUB 51157 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been at her job for three years, during these years there had been an ongoing problem with her supervisor but she never quit because she loved her job. The claimant had asked for a weeks leave due to illness, when she returned she found that her desk had been cleared of personal and work related items. The claimant stated that there had been confrontations with her supervisor and that she had been insulted with respect to her ability to perform her duties. The removing of personal and work items is in the view of the Umpire, a program or policy to obtain a resignation from the employee. The Umpire also believed that the acts of the employer in this case were sufficient to amount to in law, to constructive dismissal. The Umpire also stated that, "ordinarily the claimant would look for other employment before leaving her job, but in this case …" it was clear that the "claimant was not wanted". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Shainaz Anand
Date: 2001

CUB 57618 Umpire Decision- The Board of Referees found that the claimant had been "constructively dismissed". The claimant had worked part time but gradually worked herself up to full time duties doing other work. The employer decided to hire someone new to do the work in which the claimant had just picked up. This person would be getting more money than the claimant and the claimant's hours would be cut back. She felt she would eventually be laid off. The Commission argued that this was only an assumption and that there was no evidence to support these findings. The Umpire comments on this statement:

"The Board of Referees accepted the assumptions of the claimant. In doing so, it did not act on the basis of no evidence as is alleged by the Commission. The claimant and the Board are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from known facts."

The decision by the Umpire stated that there was substantial and detrimental change to the position of the claimant therefore constituting just cause. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

Discrimination

CUB 67421 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been working as a cabinet maker. She had been discriminated against while working there in favor of male employees. She also suffered health issues related to her work. In addition to this, she was being paid less than the male counterparts. She decided that she would leave her employment and return to school and seek part-time work. The employer would not support her request. The Board of Referees made their decision in favor of the claimant. The employer took the view that the claimant was treated properly because she was paid a wage which was in relation to her skills. The employer was of the view that the claimant did not have the skills of the male employees and therefore was paid less. The employer also admitted the claimant was asked to clean lavatories and was asked to wash dishes. None of the male employees were asked to do this. The Umpire found that there was sufficient evidence before the Board to show that the claimant suffered gender discrimination in the workplace as none of the males were asked to clean washrooms nor to wash dishes. Further, it was not explained to her on her being hired that she would be paid less than her male counterparts. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: 453266 B.C. Limited Woodform Interiors
Date: 2007

CUB 74762 Umipre Decision - The claimant was alleged to have left her employment to retire, but the claimant stated that she left because of discrimination. The work of the claimant required good English to communicate with clients and use the computer system. However, the claimant was not bilingual. She requested training to improve her English, but her request was not granted. She tried to learn by cassette tape and to get help from her colleagues, but neither were successful. Since she was in direct conflict with her employer, and so it was difficult to discuss. She was under stress and had to put up with hurtful words from her employer who criticized her work. The employer stated that the claimant left because the employer did not want to give her a pay raise. The claimant stated that she never asked for a raise and that, even if one had been offered, she would have left because she could not stay any longer. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2010

Economic Factors

CUB 18679 Umpire Decision - The claimant is appealing the decision that she left her employment without just cause. The claimant says that she left her employment because her expenses outweighed her income. Justice Muldoon is quoted as saying:

"Terminating part-time employment for reason that travel-distance and monetary considerations essentially negate any benefit from the employment is surely just cause. Conversely, disqualifying the claimant from benefits in these circumstances is tantamount to trying to compel her [to] plug along in a money-losing, or break-even, after-normal- hours, distant, part-time job."

Economic factors are to be considered in these types of situations. The appeal was allowed. Appellant: Paris Cadeau
Date: 1990

CUB 34385 Umpire Decision - The claimant's income was barely enough to accommodate her living arrangement and financial obligations. Justice Stevenson is quoted as saying the following in regards to leaving employment that could not economically support the claimant.

"This is not a case where the claimant did not explore all possibilities of alternative transportation and living accommodations. It is a case where, after doing so, the claimant left her job because she found it uneconomic to continue working."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jeanette J. Collins
Date: 1996

CUB 35229 Umpire Decision - The claimant couldn't afford to keep her babysitter and pay all her expenses. Justice Stevenson is quoted as saying:

"The circumstances that fail to be considered in this case are economic. Miss Penney could not work unless she could arrange care for her children. The cost of that care was going to increase. At some point that cost and the cost of transportation to and from work, when balanced against the real income to be derived from the employment, reach a point at which is not realistically economic for Miss Penney to continue working. I do not think one must cross Dicken's line between happiness and misery.*

The Board of Referees erred in not considering the economic factors. It did not clearly state the facts on which it based its conclusion that Miss Penney did not have just cause to leave her employment. It is a border line case but in my view falls within the principles stated by Justices Teitelbaum and Muldoon" [in CUB 14748 Umpire Decision (Nielsen) and CUB 18679 Umpire Decision (Cadeau) respectively].

"*Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. David Copperfield, ch.12." The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Bonnie Penney
Date: 1996

CUB 49560 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she left her employment voluntarily because it was too costly to live in Toronto. Furthermore the claimant's husband was under the care of a doctor in Toronto for asthma, and the new resident location had little or no air pollution which was beneficial to her husband and his health. So, the claimant also left her employment partially for her spouse. The Umpire said: "All relevant circumstances with respect to the given situation must be taken into consideration." The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Grace Thomson
Date: 2000

CUB 57874 Umpire Decision- The claimant's hours at the one job had been cut by 10 to 16 hours and she found that she was going into debt. She decided to move to Mississauga where she understood that there were employment opportunities for bilingual persons. The Umpire found that the Board of Referees made an erroneous finding of fact when they said that the claimant should have found a job in Mississauga before moving there. The Umpire finds that the distance, the travel and the availability of the claimant to do personal interviews made that impractical. The Umpire goes on to state:

"Economic circumstances were the cause for leaving; family circumstances only influenced the choice of place of relocation... In determining whether a claimant had just cause to leave a job the Employment Insurance Act requires us to have regard to all the circumstances- including economic circumstances. Failure to consider and give sufficient weight to such circumstances is an error of law."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gaétane Michaud
Date: 2003

CUB 58929 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit his employment and moved back to Newfoundland because he was unable to afford living in Alberta. The claimant stated that when his roommates left he was unable to find two new roommates and he was unable to afford his apartment on his own. The Board found that for almost a year he tried to find new roommates but he was unable to. The Board was convinced that even though he did not look for other employment, the chance of finding a high paying job was impossible. The Umpire in this case found no evidence that there was cheaper accommodations available to the claimant and that the claimant's decision to leave Alberta was not one that was quick, it took the claimant over a year to decide that he would be moving back to Newfoundland. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 75103 Umipre Decision - The claimant left her employment so that she could move back home to Magdalen Islands¬. The claimant had stat¬ed that the insurance premiums on her current house had increased substantially. The situation convinced her that the part-time employment in Mont Joli would not be financially sustainable. She believed that she could easily find a job in the restaurant industry, and proved to do so 17 days later. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 76089 Umipre Decision - The claimant worked for Remax and was laid off. She then began a part-time job but could not continue to work in Alberta with only a part-time salary and left in order to seek full-time employment on Vancouver Island. The claimant tried to request more hours at her part-time job but there were not any extra hours available. Living in a small town she had exhausted opportunities for work in that area. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Employers Financial Obligations

CUB 49211 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment after a heated conversation with his employer regarding a pay cheque that had not been honoured at the bank. The Board found that the claimant had not voluntarily left but had in fact been fired for misconduct; they state that it is understandable that the dialogue between employer and employee became heated given the financial concerns of both parties. The Umpire found that the non-payment for services rendered to an employee who works on an hourly or weekly basis is unacceptable. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2000

CUB 51803 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment as a truck driver for the reasons that the employer's financial obligations were not being met and for health and safety reasons. The claimant hauled freight and due to the restricted driving hours that are allowed he was required to stop and find accommodations. The claimant was informed at the time that in the event that his assigned trip would likely exceed the allowable log time he would be provided with a sleeper truck and that if a sleeper wasn't allowed he could find accommodations at the expense of the employer. The evidence shows that the first trip he was without funds and had to wait five hours before his employer arrived at work to fax a copy of the company credit card to pay for the hotel room. The Board found that the claimant was expected while working for the employer to partially finance the obligations of the employer until the time came to be reimbursed. This reasoning fails to take into account the employer's responsibility to the claimant and his financial situation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Benjamin Hoskin
Date: 2001

Evidence - Documented

CUB 49167 Umpire Decision - The claimant initially applied for and was granted benefits by the Commission. The employer then appealed the decision to the Board who reversed the Commission's decision. The Umpire was satisfied that the Board erred in not giving sufficient attention to documentary evidence on file. The Federal Court of Appeal on several occasions has reminded Board of Referees of their respective obligation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Steve Gullickson
Date: 2000

CUB 76523 Umipre Decision - The claimant alleged among other things that he injured himself at work. He produced a medical report indicating that he had sustained injury at work to the cervical spine and shoulder and that the key aggravating factor for his injury was the type of equipment the claimant was required to use at work. The claimant and the medical report indicates that he was unable to resolve this injury so he could go back to work on non-modified basis and this led him to leave his job. He stated that when he left his employment he also declared that he intended to take online courses to qualify in real estate, but he also stated that his job was affecting his health. The Commission disqualified the claimant because the claimant did not submit any medical evidence that he had quit his job for health reasons rather than to take self-study courses online. At the appeal to the Board, the claimant submitted a medical note but the Board saw contradiction in the claimant’s declaration that he quit due to health and not to study online. The Umpire found that the medical report produced by the claimant was an important piece of evidence for the claimant confirming that the claimant had left his place of employment due to medical reasons and should have been considered. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2011

Excessive Overtime

CUB 42607 Umpire Decision - The Claimant had worked 40 days straight without any time off. He was also not guaranteed permanent employment and therefore returned to P.E.I to find steady employment. He was found to have just cause to leave his employment as the Umpire did not feel it was safe for a human being to work for such a long period without time off to rest. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Michael Williams
Date: 1998

CUB 42610 Umpire Decision - The claimant states that she left her employment because she alleges that her employer refused to pay her overtime for the additional hours she worked. The claimant states that she discussed the situation with her employer and was informed that she would not be paid overtime for the hours she worked since the reason that she worked so many hours overtime was due to the fact that the claimant was "slow" and could not complete her work in a regular 8-hour work day. The employer also told the claimant that if she only worked 8 hours and did not finish her work within that time he would have to reduce her wage The Umpire found that, on the evidence, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment because she was required to do excessive overtime work without overtime pay. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant:Yukiko Nakatani
Date: 1998

CUB 44148 Umpire Decision - In addition to having to work six 8-hour days per week, he had to start early in the morning and finish after 10 pm at night. It became excessive, as was the plan to share working hours with a journeyman who was added. There was a plan to have the claimant work every pay from noon to 10 pm or 11 pm at night. He could not work this schedule, as there was no transportation available between his place of residence and the work site. The appellant left this job and began a job search immediately. The Umpire felt that the employer had decided to adjust the number of hours agreed on previously and was taking advantage of him. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gaétan Daneau
Date: 1999

CUB 44565 Umpire Decision - The claimant's reason for leaving was because he was working excessive overtime in his job driving a sweeper truck. Sometimes the claimant worked seventy hours per week and on occasion had to work as many as 26 hours without a break. The claimant stated that working this amount of overtime was endangering his health and safety. The Umpire felt that it was not correct to assume that simply because other people are capable of doing the work that the claimant must also be able to. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ronald Kearney
Date: 1999

CUB 51660 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit her job due to excessive overtime and not being paid for it. The employer stated that the claimant quit and gave no reason why, as well, the employer stated that if the person was on salary they were not paid for overtime. The Board found that the claimant was often working more than 40 hours a week, especially at Christmas. The employer stated that it was expected of her to work more than 40 hours a week since she was on salary. She said that none of this overtime was paid and when she asked for a raise she was told to leave. One could expect that a few extra hours during the week would be acceptable but it does not mean that the person would have to work 90 hours without some kind of compensation or bonus. In this particular case the evidence is clear that the claimant was hired to work 40 hours per week, it is also clear that she had to work a considerable amount more. When she ended up working 120 hours in two weeks she asked for a raise and was asked to leave. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Balbir Sidhu
Date: 2001

CUB 53401 Umpire Decision - The claimant brought forth that employer refused to pay overtime even when he was called out at 2:00 am to work. The Umpire wrote:

"What were the options open to the claimant? He could look around for other jobs, but he would probably need a recommendation from his own employer, which may or may not have been complimentary or freely given. His options were limited."

The appeal was allowed.
Claimant: Ilyas Muhammad
Date: 2002

CUB 55957 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she had not left her employment because she wanted to attend school but because she had a verbal agreement with her employer that he would increase her salary and he didn't. Her employer was a friend and when she accepted the job she took a lesser salary with the promise of an increase in the future. The Board dismissed the appeal because she only had the employer's verbal agreement and there was no written agreement as to when the increase would occur or for how much. The statement from the agent shows that the claimant was working 70 to 80 per week but she was only receiving 40 hours of pay. The Board did not consider the fact that the claimant had been employed there for three years. In the view of the Umpire the three years was more than enough time to be reassessed and given the pay increase that she was promised. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Astrid Lloyd
Date: 2002

CUB 59270 Umpire Decision - The claimant's reason for leaving his employment was excessive overtime as well as allegations of working conditions that caused the claimant both physical and mental stress. The Board found the evidence from the claimant to be credible and the evidence from the employer to be incredible. The Umpire stated:

" If an employer disputes a claimant's allegations, in a case of disqualification for either misconduct or voluntary leaving without just cause, but elects not to participate in the hearing before the Board of Referees it runs the risk that the Board of Referees will accept the claimant's oral evidence. That is what happened here."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Kerrisdale Paint & Decorating Centre Date: 2003

CUB 67173 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicated he quit due to stress in the workplace that had been ongoing for about one year due to a shortage of manpower that required him to work excessive overtime, sometimes as much as 65 hours per week. He took a 30-day leave of absence, without pay, to try and resolve the issue himself. He then returned to work but decided he had no alternative to quitting. He claims he would have been able to get a doctor's note affirming his condition but did not do so because of a concern that prospective employers would find out he took time off due to stress and would not consider him. The Board of Referees determined the claimant did not have just cause for leaving his employment and denied his appeal. On his appeal to the Umpire, it was determined that the Commission and the Board of Referees ignored the claimant's evidence that he was required to work overtime and that he was suffering from stress as a result of this workplace condition. The Umpire found that in light of the fact that the employer refused to reply to many telephone inquiries from the Commission, the claimant's evidence is uncontested. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Donald Green
Date: 2006

CUB 67239 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed as a janitor at a business known as Rotoform. He was working the 4 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. shift for the first six months and due to a firing and someone else quitting he was being asked to work overtime 3-4 hours per shift. On many occasions he was not paid time and a half by his employer and his cheques from time to time had to be corrected. The Board found that the claimant's duties changed so much that it affected his mental state. The Board finds the claimant to be a credible witness and finds that he had just cause in leaving his employment when he did. The Commission appealed this decision stating that payroll mistakes were corrected on the next weekly pay. However the claimant was being required to work excessive overtime with a heavier workload. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

Findings of Fact - Original Statements / Information

CUB 57228 Umpire Decision- The claimant left his employment due to significant changes in his duties. The Commission stated that the originally reason given by the claimant for quitting his job was to return to school and not significant changes in work duties. The claimant stated that he quit his job to return to school because of the changes of work duties and that he saw no advancement in the job. The Umpire agreed with the claimant that one could come to the conclusion, after significant changes in work duties, to quit a job when one realized that there was no future growth for the individual in the present employment. The Umpire said of the present case:

"In the present case the Board accepted the explanation of the claimant given orally before them notwithstanding that it had not been advanced earlier. It was open to the Board to make that finding of fact."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 57340 Umpire Decision- The claimant appeared before the Board and gave information that was inconsistent with the file information. The Board took this into account and accepted the information given by the claimant as true. The Umpire states that:

"Findings of fact are for the Board of Referees and unless the Commission can establish that the Board based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, the umpire cannot interfere."

The Board of Referees must take all information into account even contradictory statements by the claimant. The Board can take what every testimony they find is more creditable, regardless of when in the appeal process it was recorded. The Umpire has no reason to doubt the Board's decision that the claimant was laid off. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

Harassment

CUB 25508 Umpire Decision - The claimant was dealing with harassment from a co-worker who is a family member (daughter) of the proprietor of the business. The claimant attempted to resolve these issues with the employer to no avail. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Nicole Ursu
Date: 1994

CUB 27487 Umpire Decision - The Claimant contends that she submitted a letter of resignation to her employer and did so with just cause due to mental harassment and antagonistic relations. The claimant also claims that she was wrongfully dismissed because she was not allowed to workout her resignation as tendered. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean Frewer
Date: 1995

CUB 33561 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment due to the harassment to which he had been subjected to for two years by other workers with whom he needed to interact. He had been ignored, left out and harassed ever since he had refrained from taking part in a strike. The Umpire stated that it is unacceptable to choose to ignore or play down the importance of constant acts of harassment which can make life intolerable when they occur over an extended period of time. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Richard Gauthier
Date: 1996

CUB 51723 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job stating that he was being harassed by his co-workers and that he was having problems with his eyes from the employment. The claimant didn't want anymore conflicts or fighting with his co-workers so he quit. This matter was presented to the employer by the claimant, the employer talked to the co-workers about their behaviour, but according to the claimant the harassment only took place at times when the employer wasn't present. The evidence from the employer indicated that the claimant's complaint has merit and that the working environment had tension. The Umpire stated that employees are not expected to continue at an employment and absorb constant harassment and abuse. The appeal was allowed. Appellant: Thai Nguyen
Date: 2001

CUB 52364 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job because he felt that he was subject to ongoing torment everyday at work. He had spoken to his employer about the problem, as a result he was moved to another area where things were better, but he was later moved back to his original area. The claimant gave his resignation but stated that he could not work the three weeks notice. Although the claimant did not look for work before he gave his resignation it appears that he was willing to stay on if the situation had improved. The Umpire said that the Board should have allowed the appeal on the grounds that the employer knew of the harassment but didn't do anything to stop it, which left the claimant no other choice but to quit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Reginald Rushton
Date: 2001

CUB 56604 Umpire Decision- The claimant and her partner worked at the same place and endured sexual harassment from her supervisors and co-workers because of her sexual orientation. The day the claimant quit her employment there was a situation that involved the claimant and her partner. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ruth Ann Gecas
Date: 2003

CUB 57338 Umpire Decision- The claimant gave the reasons of harassment, discrimination, and accusations of things he had not done which caused him stress as the reason for quitting his employment. Much of the harassment was due to the allegations of him being a union supporter and giving information to the employees who were trying to obtain union certification at the place of employment. The Umpire states:

"An employee should not be subjected to accusations and harassment because of his views and pro-union actions, as long as these actions are not illegal or in contravention of clear policies and procedures provided by the employer, which is not proven to be the case here."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Franklin D. Rock
Date: 2003

CUB 61124 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she left her employment due to discrimination, harassment and personal conflicts in the work place. The situation involved the employer's children, who were also employed at the store. The Board felt that the evidence was equally balanced and that, in accordance with the jurisprudence, the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt. In the letter of appeal from the employer to the Umpire, he restated the evidence, confirms his own position and challenged the Board's findings and decision. The claimant disagreed with the employer's submissions and felt that the Board's decision was well founded on evidence. The determination of whether a claimant has been able to show just cause for leaving her employment and that there was no reasonable alternative to doing so entails basically a review and determination of facts. It is well established in the jurisprudence that Boards of Referees are responsible for the determination of facts, see Guay (A-1036-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal) and Ash (A-115-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal). The employer appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: West Lorne IGA
Date: 2004

CUB 62208 Umpire Decision - The reason the claimant gave for leaving her employment was the discrimination and harassment to which she had been subjected. In the exhibits before the Board the claimant described the abuses that she had to suffer, including verbal assaults, being demoted and being called in at the last minute. The last straw was when she was told that her wage was going to be decreased from $9.00 to $8.00, after this she decided to leave her employment and find work elsewhere. The Board felt that a reduction of $1.00 an hour for someone who was earning so little was a significant modification in terms of employment. The Board also found that the demotion and reduction in wages had been done in an arbitrary manner. As stated by Justice Muldoon in CUB 12252 Umpire Decision:

"Claimants are not required to endure, to be abused, exploited, misled or constructively dismissed by their employers. To find that a claimant should be disqualified from benefits because she will not be so mistreated by an employer would be against public interest and could bring … the Employment Insurance Act into sorry disrepute."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 62596 Umpire Decision - The reasons that the claimant gave for leaving his employment was that he had been subjected to verbal and mental abuse by his employer and some of his co-workers and because of unsafe working conditions. He stated that he brought his concerns to his employer but was told that if he did not like the conditions then he should leave. As was stated by Justice Haddad in CUB 50186 Umpire Decision:

"Despite the failings and inefficiencies an employee may exhibit throughout his employment (and this was not established for Mr. Bendl) the system does not demand that the employee need tolerate treatment by an employer that is humiliating and hostile".

In CUB 51723 Umpire Decision, Justice Haddad stated that conditions similar to that which Mr. Bendl was subjected to were more than harassment but were plain abuse. He went on to state that "Employees are not expected to continue in an employment and absorb constant harassment and abuse." The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Pat L. Bendl
Date: 2004

CUB 65977 Umpire Decision - For four and a half years, the claimant worked for LKM Parts Mfg. Ltd. The claimant stated that there were many days when she would cry at work because she couldn't take the meanness that was being projected at her. Her boss had no second thoughts about yelling and swearing and name calling towards his employees. She further explained that she had relocated from Ontario to Manitoba in order to be with her mother and her sister, both of whom were recently widowed. The Board of Referees found that the claimant voluntarily left her job without just cause as no effort was made to rectify the situation with her employer and no job search was conducted prior to her moving to Manitoba. The Umpire found that the claimant held undisputed evidence that she was working in an abusive work environment and that her employer mistreated his employees. The Umpire also stated that it cannot be the intention of the legislation to force employees to remain in this kind of work environment; when one's working conditions are as intolerable as this claimant's work environment was, the only reasonable conclusion can be that she had no alternative but to quit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Rose Christiuk
Date: 2006

CUB 66443 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicated that she left her employment because of discrimination, harassment and personal conflict at work. She described a meeting where her supervisor was yelling at everyone and singled her out in front of the group. She also felt intimidated by being excessively watched and hovered over. She told this to her supervisor who said nothing. She then decided to leave her employment. The Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the claimant had established just cause for leaving her employment pursuant to paragraph 29(c)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act. The Board found that the claimant attempted to follow the company policy and procedures, but the procedures in place did not allow the employee easy access to the resolution process. The claimant had presented uncontradicted evidence of more than one incident of harassment by her supervisors. She testified that she attempted to discuss the matter with her supervisor whose basic reply was that he would see her in court. When she contacted human resources, she was sent back to one of the persons she stated had treated her in a harassing manner. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 68645 Umpire Decision - The claimant was a truck driver whose employer made remarks to about being overweight when the driver had raised the issue of not being paid properly for his expenses when on the road. There was also an issue of being requested to falsify his log book. The Umpire felt that the claimant had a number of issues with the employer which looked at as a whole would amount to harassment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dennis Whalen
Date: 2007

CUB 68646 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job because he felt he was not being treated properly. His employer used abusive language in directing the employee to do repair work on a machine he was operating. The Umpire felt that the supervisor by his use of language and attitude was harassing the claimant. There was also an issue of the employee being expected to do work which was not part of his job. The Umpire stated that there was an antagonist relationship with the supervisor for which the claimant was not responsible. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Derrick Chipp
Date: 2007

CUB 69914 Umpire Decision -The claimant's leaving her employment began with her husband getting injured at work. The employer did not allow the claimant to leave to attend to her husband and another worker physically assaulted the claimant and her daughter for leaving. The claimant also stated that her employer had refused to pay overtime during the year preceding this and threatened her to make it difficult to get another job or get insurance benefits if she presented some materials to Labour Standards. The Umpire stated that the Board did not consider the fact that she was physically abused, financially abused and emotionally abused. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 74518 Umipre Decision - The claimant failed to properly respond to suggested corrective action to address issues which the employer claimed caused dissatisfaction with her performance. The employer did not appear and the Board found that there were some instances of harassment. The Board found that the claim¬ant was harassed by shareholders in being constantly criticized. Even though the claimant was hired to be a manager, she was micro-managed by the shareholders and had to justify every decision she made. The Board further finds that the claimant did do a job search as best she could based on her remote location. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2010

CUB 75998 Umipre Decision - The claimant states that throughout his employment he worked excessive amounts of overtime. The employer was often at odds with his employees regarding what he wanted done and his attitude and treatment of his employees created a stressful work environment. The final incident occurred when the claimant returned to work and was verbally attacked for not being available to the employer over the weekend. The argument escalated up to the point that, unable to reason with his employer, the claimant decided to quit his employment rather than endure verbal and emotional abuse. The claimant felt the employer was not com¬passionate about his family situation and felt he had no other choice. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2010

CUB 77679Umipre Decision - The claimant quit his employment claiming harassment and conflict in the workplace. The Board found the employee worked in an antagonistic workplace, the claimant was found to be credible and not responsible for the antagonism. The Board found the claimant’s work environment was antagonistic, intimidating, and the abuse from the employer was intolerable. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2011

CUB 77656Umipre Decision - The claimant left his job due to harassment from a co-worker. A conversation did occur between the claimant and employer for alternate locations to work, but none were available. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2011

CUB 77611Umipre Decision - The claimant stated she left her employment due to harassment. The employer had made offensive remarks and sexually harassed the claimant. Prior to leaving employment the claimant filed a grievance, with she later withdrew as she thought the work climate would be re-established, but this was not the case. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2011

Health and Safety

CUB 33709/ Umpire DecisionA-510-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - She was 59 years old and claimed that the employment she took (in a restaurant) hurt her feet. The umpire found that it was not necessary to provide a medical certificate to prove this under the circumstances. The appeal was allowed by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Appellant: Claire Brisebois
Date: 1996

CUB 40926 Umpire Decision - The issue under appeal is whether the claimant left his employment without just cause. The claimant was a truck driver with 18 years' driving experience. Most of this time was spent in local deliveries and the claimant had very little experience in long distance haulage. Some of the claimant's reasons for quitting are hurricanes, tornadoes and high winds which were an every trip occurrence. The claimant further stated that he was a menace on the road to others as he was driving a large tractor trailer while he was suffering from fatigue and stress. The Board of Referees has found that the claimant did not exhaust all reasonable alternatives prior to quitting his job. In the Umpire's opinion the claimant has satisfactorily answered this by pointing out that it was only possible to look for work on the weekend when alternative employers would not be available. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dave Worrall
Date: 1998

CUB 44310 Umpire Decision -Claimant stated that he left his employment due to second-hand smoke. There had been a change in the location of the premises from one which had a 36 foot ceiling to the basement of the same building. There had been other complaints, and efforts were made to rectify them. It is generally conceded by the general public including the medical fraternity, that second hand smoke is a major contributor to health problems, including throat cancer. The Umpire found this to be a health hazard. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kenneth MacLennan
Date: 1999

CUB 44203 Umpire Decision - The claimant, now 51 years old, is a native of the Moncton area and has been a self-employed performing country musician for most of his working life. In 1994 the claimant was diagnosed with diabetes and his doctor recommended he change his life style and follow a more normal routine of work, rest and diet. The claimant's son helped him get employment at a manufacturing plant. The work involved 10-hour shifts and required the claimant to be on his feet for long periods. It is common knowledge that diabetes often causes circulatory problems in the lower extremities. The Umpire said that the Board erred in law in ignoring the uncontradicted evidence as to the physical demands of the job. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Roger Landry
Date: 1999

CUB 46397 Umpire Decision - At first, it appears that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. Then a supplementary report on this claim indicated that the insured had been exposed to embalming fluid vapours above the acceptable levels of exposure and that he had been subject to a serious health risk for some time. This situation had been discussed with superiors, but to no avail; the problem was not corrected as it should have been. He was really forced to resign because the ventilating system at work was not operating efficiently. These are working conditions that constituted a real danger to health. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Benjamin Schon
Date: 1999

CUB 46720 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked at the Alpine Pub as a cook, but after being diagnosed with tendinitis she requested that her employer would only give her other duties that would be easier for her to handle. She quit because her employer would only give her part time work outside of the kitchen. The Board failed to consider whether the appellant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment, given her health problems and the hours that she would have been required to work in the kitchen under the proposal made by her employer. The Umpire stated that "the failure of the Board to consider the question of "reasonable alternative" in the context of the crucial facts concerning the appellant's health problems and the employer's proposed compromise constitutes an error of law". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lisa Carter
Date: 1999

CUB 46772 Umpire Decision - The appellant was a cook and an admitted alcoholic. It is generally recognized and accepted that alcoholism is a disease, unfortunately an insidious one that is not curable. An alcoholic must spend his or her entire life fighting the urge to drink. Unfortunately, for the appellant, she was offered free beer at the end of her shift and was unable to stop drinking until the bar closed...Recognizing that she needed to get away from the source of her problem, she decided to quit her job...her only reasonable alternative was to get out of that environment because of the constant temptation to drink. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Teresa Watling
Date: 1999

CUB 50654B Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that after being injured on the job he was unable to continue work due to the injuries sustained. The employer refers to the days the claimant was absent and stated that no medical certificate was provided. The claimant states that he returned to work with a note from his doctor stating he was to change jobs if possible. The claimant spoke to his supervisor but was told that there were no openings elsewhere. Although this is not confirmed in the doctor's report, the claimant stated that he was told by the doctor that he should get a different job. The majority of the Board did recognize that the report was sufficient to have the claimant request a change of job from his employer. The fact that the claimant's health problems were a result of an accident on the job and that the work environment was continuing to create problems was not contested. The Umpire was satisfied that the claimant was told by his doctor to avoid the work place and seek change. The decision of the Umpire is as follows per Minority: The appellant has proven to the best of his ability that he had just cause (health) for quitting his job at Glenway Holdings Co Ltd. Although he cannot produce medical authorization for quitting, taking into account all of the circumstances, he was justified in leaving Glenway and picked a reasonable alternative.
The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Randy Anderson
Date: 2001

CUB 51803 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed to haul freight, for reasons of safety truck drivers are restricted by law in the number of hours that they are permitted to drive each day and each is required to keep a log book. The Board made the finding:

"Based on his log records, he regularly had to drive over the maximum and no accommodations were provided by the employer."

The Umpire found that driving beyond the maximum hours allowed by the law requires consideration of the safety factor which is the prime reason for regulating driving times. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Benjamin Hoskin
Date: 2001

CUB 51905 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked as an ambulance driver that required him to be on a call two nights a week and then work his regular shift during the day. The claimant stated that the job required him to work shifts of 24 hours or more. The claimant stated how the demands of the job was affecting his health and was beginning to find night driving harder on his eyes. The claimant states that he had no other choice but leave his employment due to medical problems. The Umpire found that the claimant had just cause under s.29 (xiv), "any other reasonable circumstances that are prescribed", and subsection (iv), "working conditions that constitute a danger to health and safety." The counsel for the Commission pointed out that the claimant failed to contact the Labour Standards Board. The Umpire is of the view that not everyone is aware of all the avenues that they can pursue in order to remedy their situation with respect to their employment. Most of this knowledge comes from groups who are unionized or those who are experienced in these matters. The appeal was allowed
Appellant: Walter Musseau
Date: 2001

CUB 52230 Umpire Decision - The claimant was a conscientious employee who worked and trained to see that neither he or his co-workers got hurt, he had tried for six years to make improvements and point out safety issues but they went ignored. Considering safety is an important issue, the claimant should be commended for working in unsafe conditions while trying to obtain training and trying to make safety improvements wherever he could. There was no doubt that the claimant was working in these kinds of conditions. The Board majority held that the claimant should have perhaps taken further action. The Umpire felt that the claimant, on many occasions, explained all that he had done and why he had not done more and doing more would have likely been useless and possibly jeopardized his current and possibly future employment. The appeal was allowed. Appellant: Donald Kotylak
Date: 2001

CUB 53401 Umpire Decision- The Board noted that the claimant's truck passed safety inspections but this was inconsistent to what the claimant told the Umpire. The claimant stated that at the various stations they would enumerate or check off the deficiencies of the truck. These would eventually be fixed by the employer so that the truck could stay on the road. In the meantime until the truck was fixed the claimant would be driving it in unsafe conditions. That is considered to be a hazard and falls into Section 29 (c)(iv) of the Act. The Umpire is quoted as writing:

"What were the options open to the claimant? He could look around for other jobs, but he would probably need a recommendation from his own employer, which may or may not have been complimentary or freely given. His options were limited."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ilyas Muhammad
Date: 2002

CUB 55078 Umpire Decision - The claimant applied for benefits stating that she quit her employment because she could not handle the night shift any longer. The claimant had been switched to the day shift for a month and was then told to resume the night shift. In her letter of appeal to the Board the claimant mentioned the verbal and physical aggression that she had been submitted to by intoxicated customers. She explained that these incidents were affecting her physical and mental health. She quit when there was no choice for change. The Umpire is quoted as saying:

"I will accept the claimant's testimony that she had told the Board she had been requested to return to night shifts. I would even go as far as to state that, in the circumstances described by the claimant in her appeal letter, even one night shift per week should have been enough to constitute just cause for leaving. The night shift did constitute a threat to the claimant's health and safety. No one should be forced to work in such conditions."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Christine Boyer
Date: 2002

CUB 55645 Umpire Decision - The claimant's version has of the facts had been consistent. After three years at the same employment he had a fear for his safety and health at the work site. This falls under one of the grounds listed in s. 29 of the Act. The main question is whether or not the claimant's leaving was the only reasonable alternative. The Board disregarded the facts and ignored an exhibit in the docket. The Board ignored all the warnings, casually concluding that the claimant had failed to demonstrate that he had just cause for leaving. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Wilfred Cyr
Date: 2002

CUB 56983 Umpire Decision- These concerns could be summarized as the following: The claimant suffered from disability to his spine and right elbow, and the obligation to change from temperature to temperature. The claimant also thought that the workload was a lot for him and requested a helper and was denied. The employer on the other hand took the position that they know nothing of the claimant's disability and that he had never asked for a helper. The employer did state that they would re-hire him if he wanted to come back. The claimant stated that he had difficulty expressing his views to the employer about his concerns of safety around the plant. The employer felt that they had a good relationship and that the claimant had never brought his concerns to him.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Rochester Aluminum Smelting Canada Ltd. Date: 2003

CUB 57582 Umpire Decision- The claimant quit her employment after 8 years because of new manager's comments that she had to be less friendly and more aggressive. The claimant became upset over the comments because she felt she could no longer fulfill the expectations of the new manager, she then quit her job. The claimant became so stressed out and depressed that she sought medical attention where the doctor told her that she could not go back to such an environment that promotes insensitivity. The Umpire states that even though many people would not have been so affected by the remarks from the manager, the claimant was and could not handle it. The manager should have put the claimant in another location where she could be friendly and not aggressive. The Umpire comments that the actions of the manager caused her to become depressed therefore giving her just cause to leave her employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Frances E. Raidt
Date: 2003

CUB 58281 Umpire Decision - The material shows two reasons why she decided to leave her job; the first being that her children and grandchildren are in New Brunswick and she wanted to be closer to them. The second being that she was suffering from stress that was caused by the commute, 60 to 90 minutes each way, from her house to work. On a doctor's advice she was placed on bed rest for a month in December 1999. The claimant had unsuccessfully looked for employment that was closer to her residence When the claimant applied for benefits she did not mention her health problems, but she explained to the Board that when she applied for benefits she was in the process of obtaining a doctor's note, when the letter was submitted it stated that she was advised to seek employment closer to home. The Board felt that the claimant did not leave her employment on advice from a doctor. The Umpire disagreed. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Fay Banks
Date: 2003

CUB 58283 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her job because her responsibilities increased, which combined with her mother's illness caused stress. There is evidence that the claimant was treated for depression in June 2002 and was under stress in the fall of that year, as well, in November she was on medication for "adjustment disorder and depressed mood." The claimant gave her 2 weeks notice to her employer, when the employer offered to transfer her to a different position she resigned as well, she never asked for a leave of absence. There is no medical evidence that her doctor advised her to leave her employment, although the previous evidence shows that the claimant was under severe stress both at and away from work. The Board's majority found that discussing a leave of absence was a reasonable alternative that was made without regard for the evidence. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Susan Nason
Date: 2003

CUB 58770 Umpire Decision - The claimant was suffering from stress and he took some time off at the recommendation of his doctor. The Board found that the claimant should have asked for a transfer to a different position that would have been less stressful or asked for a leave of absence. The first finding by the Board, in regards to finding a different position, was made in complete disregard to the medical advice that the claimant received. The second finding, the leave of absence, would not have accomplished anything. The stress that was making him sick would still be in the job place when the claimant would return from his absence. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Michael Bennett
Date: 2003

CUB 58794 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left her employment because of health problems. She was asthmatic and cleaning supplies caused her health problems. She did not however consult a doctor prior to leaving nor was she advised by a doctor to quit. She had not requested a leave of absence and because she was new to the work force she did not know her rights. She said that she was bothered by a chemical required for her job. The claimant was reported to have discussed her medical problem with her employer, who provided her with a mask, but the mask caused her glasses to fog so she could not wear it. She did provide a medical note showing that she had surgery but was unable to do any lifting and was applying for sick benefits. She stated that she had to take time off work when she came down with a lung infection; she also said that her employer had never offered her the use of a mask or someone to help. The evidence before the Board included that the claimant had asthma and chemicals triggered her asthma. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sandra McAllister
Date: 2003

CUB 58966 Umpire Decision - The employer attached a great deal of evidence to their appeal that was not brought forth before the Board. Umpire Krindle declined to admit this evidence as it should have been brought forth earlier. Before the Board, the claimant brought forth the circumstances that were present at his employment and how the stress of the situation was taking him to the point of a nervous breakdown. The Board acknowledged that there was no medical evidence from the time of the claimant's working although some medical evidence after the fact was submitted. The Board also found that the claimant suffered harassment on a daily basis and did not receive the training and promotion that was originally promised by the employer. The evidence that the Board primarily relied on was that from the claimant. What is required at the end of the day is that the Board be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. The Board made no error in law or jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2003

CUB 59201 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked in a hospital waste disposing business that serviced hospitals throughout Ontario. He felt that his employment presented a number of serious hazards to his health; the claimant brought forth evidence to prove this. The evidence includes being stuck, on several occasions, with used hypodermic needles, having chemotherapy liquids and blood spilled on him and splashed in his eyes. The claimant had brought his concerns to his employer and received no results from them. A number of the incidents were corroborated with documentary evidence, including letters from four co-workers that had worked there. The claimant stated that he had not gone to the Department of Labour because he feared that it would lead to a dismissal. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Enviro-Med Canada Inc.
Date: 2003

CUB 59269 Umpire Decision - The claimant was hired by Northern Metallic Sales for a 90 day probationary period, the claimant did not realize that this workplace is one where the customers and employees were able to smoke when and where they wanted. The claimant is a former smoker who is now very sensitive and intolerant to second hand smoke, this was aggravated even more when the colder weather hit and the warehouse doors had to be closed. After waiting three weeks the claimant left his employment because of the second hand smoke. The Umpire felt that the dangers of second hand smoke are now well known and a medical certificate should not be required to point out the danger. The Umpire stated that while there is a general rule that a person should seek other employment before they quit a job, this is not the case where there are intolerable working conditions that can cause a danger to the health and safety of the employee (see CUBs 38611 Umpire Decision and 43142 Umpire Decision). The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: John Dines
Date: 2003

CUB 59311 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked in construction and often worked at great heights. While he was employed he developed a fear of heights, his fear was so great that he was unable to discuss it with anyone. The evidence that the claimant provided before the Board includes a medical report stating that he was no longer able to continue his employment. The employer refuted the evidence and stated that the claimant did not discuss his fear of heights with him. The Board found that the claimant had been placed at another job but his fear of being unsafe continued. They also found that the claimant's state of mind was such that he was unable to discuss his fear with his employer and that it was after he left his employment that he consulted a doctor about the situation. The Board was aware of the fact that in the initial testimony by the claimant and his documentation, that the claimant did not raise the issue of his fear of heights. The credibility of the claimant was before the Board and was greatly appreciated by the Board. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: The Restorers Group Inc.
Date: 2003

CUB 59367 Umpire Decision - She stated that the reasons she had not obtained a medical certificate in regards to her health problems that were related to work was because of the difficulty of finding a family doctor in North Bay. The Umpire states that although a medical certificate stating that the claimant was required to leave his or her employment due to the health problems created by the work place is usually required to prove just cause for leaving one's employment, it has been held that such certificate is not essential in certain cases (CUB 14805 Umpire Decision and CUB 18965 Umpire Decision). In CUB 18965, Justice Teitelbaum wrote:

"The type of medical evidence required in order to find just cause for leaving depends on "the facts and circumstances of ... [the] case." (CUB 14805 Umpire Decision) For example, in CUB 14805, the claimant had just cause to leave her job without first obtaining a medical certificate where she already knew that her boss's bad temper was aggravating her ulcer and already had medication for her ulcer. Here, Mr. Richardson has already had his breathing problems diagnosed in February 1988 and was using a bronchodilator regularly as of February 1988."

The medical reports that she provided conformed her medical problems but she could not relate them back to the employment conditions that existed a few months earlier. The Umpire stated that "to find that the claimant had not shown she had just cause for leaving her employment pursuant to paragraph 29(c) of the Act would be to force workers living in areas with limited access to health services to continue working in conditions detrimental to their health for indefinite periods of time". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Anne Greer
Date: 2003

CUB 60013 Umpire Decision - The facts of this case are that the claimant quit her job because of smoke from an adjacent room and because the temperature was too hot and the environment was unprofessional. The claimant did not contact the WCB while she was working there because she did not want to get her employer in trouble, but she did contact them after she left. She stated that she spoke to her supervisor and made some attempt to fix the problem but the smoking problem continued. The claimant was also very worried about the issue of second hand smoke, and it should be noted that the claimant had applied for work in about two or three places and eventually obtained work about six weeks after she left her employer. The Umpire considered the decision of the Board and was concerned with the fact that the Board underlined that the claimant did not quit her employment due to health reasons yet she now appears to claim this to be the case. There was no evidence of claimant's health problems but her complaint was the dangers which the second hand smoke could be to her health. It seems clear that the claimant was exposed to second hand smoke and that Umpire Riche took judicial notice of the fact that second hand smoke is recognized scientifically as being dangerous to health. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Rebecca Zischka
Date: 2004

CUB 60212 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he had left his employment because he felt that the working condition were harmful to his health. The claimant indicated that he had raised his concerns with his employer but no results had come from it. He had described in details the reasons that he was concerned about his health; this included the employer's lax attitude about safety and the possibility of explosions. The employer never returned any of the calls that the Commission had made to them. The employer and the claimant both appeared before the Board who came to the decision that the claimant had left his employment due to some obvious health and safety risks but that his main concern seemed to be his salary and his dissatisfaction with it. The Board failed to take into consideration the claimant's detailed description of his safety concerns. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Andrzej Wozniak
Date: 2004

CUB 60270 Umpire Decision - The facts of this case are that the claimant suffers from epilepsy and that his work record is scattered. On March 24, 2003, after getting off work the claimant suffered a seizure, he went home and did not return to work. The claimant was working as a carpenter handling steel pipes at considerable heights and was very concerned about having a seizure and dropping a pipe on someone below him. He had provided the Commission with a note from his doctor dated September 8, 2003 stating that he was unable to work due to his uncontrollable and unpredictable seizures, but the Commission refused to rescind their decision because he had not provided a note when he left his employment in March. In its representations to the Board, the Commission relied on CUB 41453 Umpire Decision. In that decision, the Umpire stated:

"The jurisprudence holds very clearly that one must produce a letter from a physician if he is pleading that he quit his job for health reasons which specifically indicate that the physician counselled him to quit his job because of health reasons."

The Umpire said that while it is seen that a person must submit a note from a doctor to support an argument that health reasons gave them reasons to leave their employment, like most general rules, there are exceptions. In the present case, considering the claimant's line of work and the hazards that could occur if he had another seizure, like on March 24, 2003, it is left to be seen that Mr. Mason had no reasonable alternative to leave his employment on that date. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Stanley K. Mason
Date: 2004

CUB 60288 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he had left his employment due to health concerns as a result of radiation in his workplace. The employer felt that the claimant had quit because he was unhappy with the salary that he was receiving, they also stated that there is no health issues and that no one else has ever complained. The claimant appeared before the board but the employer did not. The Board's decision reads as follows:

"The claimant and his representative presented a witness at the hearing Mr. Nikolaev Leonid, who testified that there is a high level of radiation at the work place and when the claimant started talking about it the employer did not like it."

The employer's declarations to the Board showed discrepancies and did not seem credible. In giving the claimant a two week paid notice, the Board deducts that the claimant was fired and that the claimant did not leave on his own. The employer used the salary issue as a pretext to fire the claimant as he did not like him talking about the CSST and the Normes du Travail. The claimant's testimony seemed credible to the Board. On the appeal to the Board, the employer stated that the Board's decision was founded on misrepresentation of the facts before the Board. The employer had basically restated its case, saying that there was no concern in regard to radiation in the workplace and that the claimant had quit because he had not been able receive a pay raise. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Advantech Advanced Microwave
Date: 2004

CUB 62788 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she had to miss work due to health problems. After the claimant had been absent for three days, the employer sent a letter stating that it was assumed that she had resigned because she had not contacted her employer about her absence. When the claimant contacted her supervisor, she was informed that the decision could not be changed. The claimant was offered the chance to take sick days under the company's group insurance plan and then resume working. The claimant refused this offer stating the problems that she had with her supervisor. In her appeal letter, the claimant stated that it would be difficult to return to her employment because she would continue to have problems with the supervisor and that she would always be stressed. The Board, in their decision, stated that they felt the employer-employee relationship was breached by the letter of dismissal that the claimant was given. The Board decided that the claimant had not voluntarily left without just cause, but rather it was the employer who had dismissed her. In the appeal letter, the claimant stated that only when she told her employer that she had filed for benefits and asked for her ROE, did they ask her to come back. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2005

CUB 67365 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked for a company known as Canadian Waste from December 1997 to May 24, 2001. Then he worked with a company known as Langfab from June 4, 2001 to June 5, 2001, a period of only two days. The claimant found that Langfab was an unsafe place to work. There was nowhere to work safely without possibly slipping on oil grease or clutter lying around the shop. Welding was going on without screens and he had also a reason to believe that it was a Hell's Angels outfit. His benefits were denied by the Commission. The Board found that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without just cause and stated that he did not seek alternate employment while continuing to work for his employer. The Umpire found that the circumstance in which the claimant found himself were not normal therefore remaining to work under the same employer while seeking alternate employment was not an option. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lorne G. Novak
Date: 2007

CUB 69798 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicated that his reason for leaving his work was because of dangerous working conditions. The equipment he was operating did not have a working air conditioner and the temperatures in the cab were exceeding 40 degrees Celsius. He stated that he reported this problem to his supervisor who was also the safety officer and told that the parts for the air conditioner had been ordered. The claimant gave his employer a month to fix the problem but the equipment was never repaired. The Umpire found that none of the employees should have been required to work under the type of conditions which existed and that the employer already stated that it would most likely have refused a request for leave because of its own deadlines. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2007

CUB 69967 Umpire Decision - The claimant states that he left his employment due to his employer's vehicle being unsafe and defective with the result that he received fines for offences in contravention of the Highway Traffic Act. Although the claimant was not responsible for these offences, the employer deducted the amounts of the fines from his pay cheques. The claimant stated that although notified, that the truck needed repairs the employer refused to make these repairs. The Board of Referees in their decision determined that claimant's version of facts appeared more valid than the employer's and allowed the appeal. The employer's appeal to the Umpire was dismissed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 70455 Umpire Decision - The claimant was hired as a forklift operator. Upon starting the position, the claimant was expected to do lifting which he was not able to do because of a shoulder injury that resulted from an accident. Although the claimant did not discuss alternative work with his supervisor, the claimant stated that he knew there was no other work that he would be able to do because a forklift was not on site during his shifts and that was the type of work he was hired to do. The claimant was now receiving a permanent pension as a result of the injury. The Umpire, agreeing with the minority member, stated that the choice was not a personal one, but due to a physical disability. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

Intolerable Working Conditions

CUB 38611 Umpire Decision - The Umpire found that the claimant did have just cause to quit due to deplorable working conditions stating that "This is not a third world country and, to me, having dirty washrooms is a deplorable matter and just cause for leaving". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Madelaine Hunt
Date: 1997

CUB 43142 Umpire Decision - The claimant was the job steward for the Boilermakers Union Local 146 and was employed by Melloy & Associates on the Syncrude Suncor site. He complained that on weekends Suncor refused to clean the rooms in which they were living, this is according to its obligation. Suncor also refused to bring in bottled water, the only source of water was supplied by a garden hose, which by any means is unsanitary. As well, the beverages supplied to the employees were inadequate, each man was only supplied with a 250 ml carton of milk and a 250 ml drink for a ten hour shift. When a request to have those amounts increased was put forth they were met with refusal. The Umpire in this case is quoted as saying:

"The conditions of the claimant's employment were indeed intolerable. His grievances were genuine and he took reasonable steps to alleviate many problems only to meet with resistance. He was branded a trouble-maker for his efforts and that attitude alone on the part of management made claimant's employment difficult to the point where it becomes intolerable. Without the co-operation of management he was unable to correct the grievances of the men who he represented. The claimant in quitting acted reasonably in the circumstances."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dennis Crowther
Date: 1998

CUB 50204 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit his job because of a number of unsatisfactory circumstances: he had to work so many night shifts each week, the night shifts were affecting the claimant's health because he could not sleep, the claimant was concerned about robberies, the claimant had looked for work before he quit but was unable to obtain other employment and also the claimant indicated that there was sexual discrimination at the service station because female employees were not required to work the night shifts. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Steven Tilley
Date: 2000

CUB 50475 Umpire Decision - The claimant states that she had just cause when she left her job due to stress she encountered with her employers. The Commission contends that quitting her employment was not the only reasonable alternative. The Umpire agrees with the Board of Referees in that an employee should discuss problems with the employer, in this case she was certainly given what would be referred to as a "cold shoulder" by her employer. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Norma Greer
Date: 2000

CUB 54375 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been laid off from her job as a dental receptionist of 14 years. She then applied for another position at another clinic; she accepted the position believing that she would be replacing someone who was leaving. It turned out that the person had decided not to leave. This resulted in an overcrowded office where the claimant did not even have a desk or a work station. The claimant had a desire to only work part time and to not work late in the day, these were factors that resulted in the claimant leaving after only eight days. The major factor would be the unsatisfactory office arrangement. The claimant did not get the job she was hired for and that the situation was pursuant to section 29(c) of the Act. This case is similar to CUB 44290 Umpire Decision where the position that the claimant was hired was misrepresented by the employer. In that case the claimant had stuck it out much longer than in this case but it seems that the claimant had just cause. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Anna Curtis
Date: 2002

CUB 56636 Umpire Decision- The claimant makes her position that she was made to work unsafe conditions and that the weather was too cold to continue to work. The claimant states that she talked to the owner- employer about her concerns and nothing was done about it. Also the claimant points out that to find a job working 10-12 hours a day for 6 days a week is difficult to find. It should be noted that the employer has received four Administrative Penalty Decisions due to the fact that there were four different violations concerning the Occupational Heath and Safety Regulations. The penalties were imposed only after "repeat, non-compliance' with regulation requirements. This shows the lack of care and concern for the safety of others by the employer. The Umpire states in regards to the safety concerns:

"Claimant's working conditions, in general, were intolerable and manifestly unsatisfactory to give rise to a genuine grievance. The claimant tried to place her problems before her employer only to find he was not interested in hearing or rectifying. The claimant has demonstrated just cause within the concept of that term. She had no reasonable alternative to quitting."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Georgina Manson
Date: 2003

CUB 67392 Umpire Decision - The claimant had many difficulties while working with his former employer. He pointed out that the supervisor he worked under had a drug problem. The difficulties started about two and a half years ago when his first manager got 'hooked on' crack. Then that supervisor was let go and he had to work under another supervisor who caused him difficulty when his work load tripled. The Board of Referees found that the claimant did report antagonism with the store manager but did not stay long enough to seek resolution and the employer indicated that the claimant was primarily responsible for the antagonism. The Umpire stated that the Board should have found that there were significant changes in the claimant's work duties. The claimant was required to do substantially more work, a large portion of which the manager was supposed to do. The Umpire found that the significant changes in the past five years, show that the claimant could not continue working there because of the stress that was built up due to these changes. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Derek Griffith
Date: 2007

CUB 69446 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his employment because of an intolerable work atmosphere created by management which was difficult if not abusive towards him and other staff members. From the evidence it was apparent that there was a breakdown in communication between the employer and the claimant. The employer was becoming increasingly frustrated with the claimant's performance and questioning of store procedures. The Board of Referees in their decision found that because of a breakdown in communication and because the claimant perceived that there was a significant change in responsibilities, he had a just cause for leaving his employment. The Umpire could not find any error in fact or in law that would justify intervention. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2007

Lack of Proof

CUB 27488 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed in a shipping department. He was a good worker who apparently had difficulty with the English language. The claimant was instructed by his employer to bring forth a carton without specifying which one. Unfortunately, the claimant brought the wrong one. According to the claimant the employer used harsh language, told him to get the right one immediately and as he was about to comply the employer said "if you can't bring it immediately you can go home". The claimant interpreted that instruction to mean he was fired. As a consequence he left. The claimant contends that he was fired. The employer, who says he was sorry for the incident, contends the claimant left voluntarily. It was found that if a claimant was instructed to leave it cannot be said to be voluntarily. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dennis Eichelmann
Date: 1995

Medical Information - Defined/Requirements

CUB 14805 Umpire Decision - Madame Justice Reed states:

"The decision stands for the proposition that in the facts and circumstances of that case a reasonable person would have obtained a medical certificate before leaving, to substantiate his contention. But, that does not mean that, in every case there must be a medical certificate in order to find just cause for leaving. The presence or absence of a medical certificate is a question of evidence. If one exists, the evidence supporting the claimant's position may be stronger than otherwise. But, even in the absence of a medical certificate, it is still open to a Board to find that a person had just cause, on the basis of health, for leaving employment".

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Shahnaz Dadvand
Date: 1988

CUB 35407 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked as a sales coordinator when she voluntarily left her employment. She indicated that she quit because of stress-related depression and anxiety. She explained that she had approached her superior to inform him that her workload was becoming too heavy to perform effectively. He had told her that this was normal in the hospitality business. Prior to leaving her employment, she took three weeks off hoping to feel better. She then returned to work but after seven weeks felt she could not continue and resigned. The claimant submitted a medical certificate, wherein her physician recommended that she take a stress leave for an indefinite period of time. The Commission called the employer who indicated that she was entitled to seventeen weeks of paid leave but she had not applied for it. The Umpire felt that there were a number of circumstances which demonstrated that the claimant had no reasonable alternative but to leave her employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1996

CUB 44203 Umpire Decision - The claimant is a diabetic and had been told by his doctor that he needed to change his lifestyle and follow a more normal routine of work, rest and diet. The claimant's son helped him find employment at a manufacturing plant, this work involved 10 hour shifts and required him to be on his feet for long periods of time. The claimant stated that he left his employment due to health problems but he failed to consult a doctor concerning his medical problems. The Umpire is quoted as saying:

"In the present case Mr. Landry's credibility as to his diabetes and the effect of long periods on his feet at work is not questioned. He has now produced evidence that he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1994...The Board of Referees erred in law in ignoring the uncontradicted evidence as to the effects of the physical demands of the job in Orillia. I see no need to send the matter back for re-hearing. Mr. Landry's physical condition by itself left him with no reasonable alternative to leaving his employment, i.e. he had just cause to leave."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Roger Landry
Date: 1999

CUB 47398 Umpire Decision - The claimant was a loyal and responsible employee. She quit her employment to move to Ottawa as she wanted to be close to her family since she had no family in New Brunswick "since husband passed away" and there was no one in NB for her. In the present case, the claimant, having lost her husband and by not having anyone to converse with or be with, truly believed "she would lose her mind" if she remained in NB. She didn't look for work prior to moving and didn't have a doctor's order to quit but the Umpire deemed her credible as the Board of Referees also had. The Umpire believed she had no alternative but to quit her job for her own sanity. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Raymonde Patterson
Date: 2000

CUB 48169 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment after giving six weeks notice to her employer and training her successor. The Claimant's husband was seriously injured in an accident (brain injury) which had caused stress and depression for the claimant. There was medical evidence on the file of this fact. Just cause was found without direct doctor's order to leave employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Cynthia Vaz
Date: 2000

CUB 49964 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicates that she left her employment due to health reasons, personality conflicts and lack of training. In this case, the claimant showed that she had been under the care of a doctor and a psychologist due to health problems brought on by her employment situation. She did discuss these difficulties with her superiors however, her situation did not change. She tried to find work elsewhere before she left, but was unable to. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Roberta Boucher
Date: 2000

CUB 50654B Umpire Decision - Shortly after the claimant left his employment the Commission received a letter from the claimant's doctor confirming the days that the claimant wasn't at work and that he had been referred to a specialist, but due to the fact that the claimant had to move to another province the appointment wasn't kept. The majority of the Board wasn't satisfied that the letter constituted proof for the claimant to quit his employment but they did recognize that the condition was serious enough to request a job change. In the present case it was concluded that the claimant was on medication to alleviate his condition, this shows that the problem is serious. As well, the claimant has never before or since had breathing problems which makes it likely that he would not be able to return to work there. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Randy Anderson
Date: 2001

CUB 51723 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job stating that he was having difficulty with his eyes created by his job on a sand blasting machine and for the fact that his co-workers were harassing him. The claimant submitted a letter from a doctor specializing in ophthalmology which confirms that the claimant was having problems with his eyes. The letter does not recommend that he leave his employment but the claimant states the doctor suggested he look for work elsewhere. The claimant's complaints were related directly to his employment. The appeal was allowed. Appellant: Thai Nguyen
Date: 2001

CUB 51905 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked as an ambulance driver that required him to be on a call two nights a week and then work his regular shift during the day. The claimant stated that the job required him to work shifts of 24 hours or more. The claimant stated how the demands of the job was affecting his health and was beginning to find night driving harder on his eyes. The claimant also states that he had no other choice but leave his employment due to medical problems and for fear of his health and safety, but was not advised by a doctor to quit his employment. The Umpire stated:

"Although it is true Mr. Musseau did not have a medical certificate to support his evidence, I am satisfied that had he gone to a physician and explained his position that he would probably have no difficultly in obtaining a letter from the physician to support his position."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Walter Musseau
Date: 2001

CUB 51953 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit her job citing medical reasons for the cause even though there had been no mention of any medical problems to the employer and medical leave was never asked for. The employer stated that on numerous occasions the claimant complained of sore feet and had asked for a reduction in hours due to it. A doctor's note was provided by the claimant but it was undated and unsigned but it was on the doctor's letterhead and prescription forms and gave the dates of appointments that the claimant attended. In arriving at their decision the Board majority based its decision without regard to the uncontested evidence about the health problems that was presented by both the claimant and the employer. This is in direct contradiction with the majority's findings that the claimant never complained or asked for time off for health reasons. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Pierrette Bouillon
Date: 2001

CUB 52107 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit her job because she came down with a severe attack of the flu due to the conditions in the workplace. When the claimant got ill she did not go to a doctor, she went to a pharmacist and got 'treatment' from him. In this case the Board seemed to rely on CUB 23718 Umpire Decision where the Umpire said:

"...that jurisprudence has established that where the detrimental effect of one's health is being alleged as just cause a claimant must provide medical evidence to substantiate the claim."

This is generally misinterpreted as meaning evidence from a doctor. Medical evidence can take many forms, it can be the person himself or herself orally, it can be from a specialist orally or in writing, or it can be from other persons. It is evident, in this case, that the claimant did give medical evidence that she became seriously ill as a result of working in an unheated building or an improperly heated building. The Board was in error when it considered that the claimant had to have a medical certificate or a doctor to give evidence on her behalf. The Board also took the position that a doctor could only give medical evidence, which was wrong. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Shirma Thomas
Date: 2001

CUB 54511 Umpire Decision - The Board agreed with the Commission and dismissed the claimant's appeal. The Board's decision was as follows:

"The Board of Referees considers that the claimant did not have just cause for leaving her employment on a doctor's recommendation without having first secured other employment. She did not in fact quit her job on a doctor's recommendation, because she had made up her mind before consulting the doctor…"

The Board erred in finding that the absence of the recommendation by the doctor was fatal to the exemption. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Linda Saccaro-Duval
Date: 2002

CUB 54915 Umpire Decision - The evidence showed that stress caused by a number of employment related problems led the claimant to leave her employment. The Board found that the claimant had no medical evidence to support her claim of stress; this finding was made without regard for exhibit 10.49, which was a letter from the claimant's doctor that she had been suffering stress. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Trudy Curatolo
Date: 2002

CUB 55643 Umpire Decision - The claimant in this case is appealing two decisions that apply to several issues. The claimant is appealing the decision to back date his claim and whether or not he had just cause in leaving his employment with Lafarge Construction Material, Metal World Inc and Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd. In regards to the appeals regarding the backdating, Lafarge Construction Material and Metal World Inc. the appeals were dismissed. In regards to Fluor the counsel for the claimant asked the Umpire to intervene because the Board dismissed a medical certificate that had been submitted. The certificate states that the claimant was diagnosed as having reactive depression. In this case the Umpire is of the opinion that the Board failed to honour its obligations under subsection 114(3) of the Act, by ignoring the medical certificate. For this reason the appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert Godin
Date: 2002

CUB 57671 Umpire Decision-The Commission is appealing the decision that the claimant left his employment without just cause because he had not produced any medical proof to justify his quitting. The Board of Referees overturned the decision with regards that once the claimant submitted a medical certificate, he should be entitled benefits. The employer allowed the claimant to take one week off, which turned into three weeks. When the employer inquired about the claimant's intentions the claimant stated that he was not coming back. The claimant had a phobia of doctors and even though he was sick he did not consult a doctor therefore the claimant did not know what sickness he had and could not get treatment for it. The claimant eventually submitted a medical certificate therefore should be able to receive benefits. The Umpire stated that the claimant had reasonable cause for leaving his employment due to the circumstances of his phobia. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 65632 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed as parts manager when she left her employment. The Commission ruled it was not a justified departure from employment and excluded her from benefits. The Board asked the claimant if it was possible for her to seek other employment prior to quitting. She replied that she was burnt out at the time and had stopped seeking other employment because she was stressed out. The Commission has also argued that the claimant failed to demonstrate that her work place situation was not so intolerable that she had no choice but to quit without other employment. The Board concluded the claimant was justified in leaving employment because of the intolerable situation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: All Island Deer (2002) Ltd.
Date: 2006

CUB 68256 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left his job at a golf course because of allergic reactions to the chemicals which were used at the golf course as well as the difficulty he was having in the commute on his bike to the work place. He didn't have a doctor's note regarding the medical condition but his father verified the situation. The minority member of the Board who would have allowed the appeal felt that the weakness of not having medical evidence to support his claim was more than overcome by the supporting evidence of medical issues and the knowledge that golf courses use a lot of chemicals. The Umpire said it appeared that the majority was not accepting his explanations concerning the medical condition because he had not submitted a doctor's certificate. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gregory Patko
Date: 2007

CUB 70451 Umpire Decision - The claimant had a medical condition that was exasperated by washing toilets outside in the cold. When the claimant consulted with his doctor, the claimant was advised to leave his job, but was not given formal documentation. In making their decision, the Board cited CUB 41453 Umpire Decision in which it is stated that a claimant must have medical documentation to prove just cause for voluntary leaving. However in CUB 14805 Umpire Decision, it has been established that the presence or absence of a medical certificate is a question of evidence, and is not necessary in proving just cause for leaving for medical reason. The Board made an error in law in stating that the claimant had to have medical documentation. Evidence provided shows the claimant sought medical care before and after leaving his employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 70103- The claimant quit her employment because she found the holding of two jobs to be to hectic and was causing her stress. The Board rejected the stress reason because she failed to provide medical evidence. The Umpire stated that in most instances stress should not be accepted without support of medical evidence but that is not a hard and fast rule. He said it may well become evident to a fact finding tribunal that the circumstances of a person’s employment could create stress of a sufficient gravity to justify that person to voluntarily terminate employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 72616- The claimant quit his job for health reasons. He felt pressure all the time and was stressed. He indicated that he had not consulted a doctor before quitting. He added that he had told the branch manager that he could not take it anymore and was told he should take a couple days off. He had been on medication for his depression for 3 months, however the prescription ran out and his work stress exacerbated his condition. The doctor that the claimant had seen when he was given medication recommended that he quit his employment. The claimant did not have a family doctor as there was a shortage in the area. The claimant appeared before the Umpire with a medical certificate confirming his illness at the time of employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

CUB 73114- The claimant quit her job with a supermarket due to health reasons. The claimant submitted a medical form confirming her condition. The claimant also indicated that she was available and capable of working light duties such as a sitting job. The employer advised that they did offer the claimant modified duties which she would be capable of completing, but she refused. The employer also advised that the claimant did not request a medical leave of absence. The claimant appealed this decision and provided the Umpire with a doctors certificate confirming her medical condition. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

CUB 74903 Umipre Decision - The claimant worked as a coater operator in the production of asphalt shingles and operated this machine for four days consecutively, 12 hours a day, on a rotating schedule, which included weekdays and weekends, as well as night and day shifts. He was constantly exposed to intense heat, tar and asphalt fumes and fibreglass particles. His employer did not always provide protective equipment. He felt his working conditions were affecting his physical and mental healt¬h. The Umpire deemed that based on plain common sense one could judge that there was no need to provide a medical certificate. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Modification of Terms and Conditions of Employment / Work Duties

CUB 15298 Umpire Decision - The claimant found herself in a situation where the terms and conditions of employment were not as portrayed on her hiring. The Umpire referred to CUB 12252 Umpire Decision which stated:

"Now, the jurisprudence holds that there are many disappointments and stoicisms which claimants must reasonably bear in order to remain eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits and to avoid disqualifications, if not also penalties. That is generally appropriate in a collective insurance program for the relief of hardship. What claimants are not required to endure, however, is to be exploitive, misled or constructively dismissed by their employers. On the evidence, that is what the referees apparently found when they found

"....the reduction of wages, from that originally offered..." Now, that a claimant should be disqualified from benefits because he would not be so used by an employer who engages him, but breaks his word, if not also the contract of employment, would be offensively against public interest and would bring the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act into sorry disrepute."

The Umpire stated that it was unfair for an employee to continue to work under terms and conditions that are different from those agreed to. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Patricia Wentzell
Date: 1988

CUB 25209 Umpire Decision/A-517-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The Claimant worked for a bank for several years at 37.5 hours/week. Due to downsizing of the branch she was given the option of working 27 hours/week or of taking a generous severance package. She needed the full-time wage to support her family of 5 children. It was found that this reduction in wage to be significant enough to constitute modification in wages or salary within the meaning of the Act. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Nancy Horslen
Date: 1994

CUB 36789 Umpire Decision - The claimant experienced a change in work duties which required him to do heavy lifting or employ someone at his own expense to do it for him. Because the change from no physical labour to heavy physical labour was significant the Umpire found that the claimant did indeed have just cause and reinstated the initial decision of the Commission for the claimant. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Glen Giffen
Date: 1996

CUB 38479 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed at the Pantry Family Restaurant in North Delta until March 5, 1995 when she went on maternity leave. When the time came for her to return to work at the beginning of October, the employer offered her reduced hours of work which the claimant found unacceptable. She found a full time job but was laid off on October 28. The Board of Referees dismissed her appeal. The Umpire found that a significant reduction in work hours with a consequent loss of income gave the claimant just cause to leave the employment with the restaurant. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jaswinder Gill
Date: 1997

CUB 39752 Umpire Decision - The employer demanded that the claimant acquire a CB radio to allow the employer to better perform its contract. This was a new provision and a change to the terms and conditions of employment without the claimant's consent and that alone provides the claimant with just cause for leaving. This clearly constitutes changes in work duties within the provisions of section 28(4)(i). The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Craddock Trucking Ltd.
Date: 1997

CUB 41058A Umpire Decision - The Board based its decision on the ground of "no evidence of proven urgency" for quitting. The test according to the Employment Insurance Act, section 29 is whether claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving. The manager's unreasonable demand that she report for work despite her illness left the claimant with no reasonable alternative but to quit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Susan Deveau
Date: 1998

CUB 43162 Umpire Decision - The appellants are husband and wife and were hired by the employer to work as a "live in couple" on a horse farm owned and operated by the employer. The appellants were interviewed for their jobs by Ms. Doyle, who told them that they would be covered by the company's group dental plan and medical benefits plan, and that their wages and working conditions would be reviewed in two months after they started work. The appellants quit their jobs, without having any secured alternative employment. The immediate cause of their resignation was a telephone call in response to a letter the claimant had written complaining of the company's failure to register them in the group insurance plan in time to enable her to claim reimbursements for medical and dental expenses incurred, believing they were covered by the plan. Although it is literally true that the appellants failed to pursue alternative ways of resolving their complaint before quitting, an "alternative" must be something that is reasonably open to claimants. Claimants should not be disqualified because they fail to take their complaint to others before quitting, when they have reasonable grounds for thinking it would be fruitless to do so. In light of the totality of the circumstances in this case, it was reasonable for the claimants to believe that it would be futile to pursue further their grievance over the dental and medical benefits, and that they did not fail to consider alternatives to quitting that were reasonably available to them. The appeal was allowed.
Appellants: Walter and Monta Souter
Date: 1998

CUB 44290 Umpire Decision - The claimant submitted a detailed history of her work at Arviat and participated in the Board hearing. Despite the detailed written presentation the Board said she had not given any new information. When the claimant arrived in Arviat her employer told her that she would be a Mental Health consultant for Arviat and Whale Cove with a specialty in child sexual abuse...her duties constantly changed...while in the North the claimant did take some child welfare training, not because she wanted to work in that field, but because she found herself having to respond to child welfare and protection cases. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Margaret Sullivan
Date: 1999

CUB 46119 Umpire Decision - The issue is the proper characterization of a dispute that arose between the claimant and his employer. The claimant lives near Moncton and worked on a Moncton-Dartmouth run carrying Purolator courier packages. His employer asked him to move to a different run (Moncton-Kentville) which according to the employer involved more hours. The claimant refused because this was a temporary run. He considered the Moncton-Dartmouth run to be "his run". The employer stated that there would have been lots of work after the Moncton-Kentville rum ended and that the claimant was not fired. The claimant asserted that by moving him from the Moncton-Dartmouth run he was constructively dismissed. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Edwin Brine
Date: 1999

CUB 46699 Umpire Decision - The claimant submitted evidence which supported his decision to leave his employment with just cause. The additional duties he was required to perform under the new Executive Director created a significant change of work duties and the difference in the work atmosphere left the claimant no alternative to leaving. The claimant was left alone to do the janitorial services formerly performed by two of them and at the same time he was expected to perform duties over and above his janitorial commitments. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lloyd Boucher
Date: 1999

CUB 49221 Umpire Decision - The claimant appeals on the grounds that he was employed to work as a service station ramp attendant at $6.00 per hour, however the claimant states that he did do mechanical work that the employer began to ask him to do; such as flushing radiators and doing brake jobs on vehicles. The claimant asked for more money related to the work he was being required to do and was denied. The Umpire found that the claimant was within his rights to ask for more compensation for the greater valued work which he was doing. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Selby Pearce
Date: 2000

CUB 49249 Umpire Decision - After the claimant was disentitled she filed a number of documents in which she explained that when she was hired she was hired as a clerical data clerk but her employment description changed dramatically, which lead to her leaving the job. She claims that she was more than qualified as a data entry clerk but her duties changed to include laundry, vacuuming, looking after the children and at one point pitching a tent. None of these activities were listed in her job description. The Umpire is quoted as saying:

"Whether one does enough to raise awareness of an unacceptable situation is always a difficult matter to assess. However, it is a test which, while objective, must be viewed with some subjectivity and in context of what occurred."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lee-Anne Poirier
Date: 2000

CUB 54092 Umpire Decision - The Commission argues that the Board erred in their decision and more particularly in describing the significant changes to the claimant's duties after she returned to work after being absent from a work related injury. When the claimant had been hired at the supermarket she was hired as a cashier and receptionist. When she returned to work she found that her schedule had been changed to include evening shifts as well, she had been assigned to replace, as needed, an absent employee in the meat department. When the claimant went to the employer to discuss her dissatisfaction she was allegedly told, "Your schedule no longer exists. If you don't like it, leave." The employer states that the claimant didn't discuss anything before she quit, and that if hours had been the problem something could have been arranged. When the claimant noted that nothing was being done by the employer she left for personal reasons, approximately two weeks after she returned. The Umpire quoted Ash (A-115-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal), Guay (A-1036-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal) and Landry (A-1210-92 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal). The Board decided that after two weeks the claimant had just cause to leave her employment due to significant changes to her work duties and schedule. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

CUB 54166 Umpire Decision - The claimant was hired by LNR Enterprises as a dispatcher. It is not disputed that the claimant's employment consisted of four days on, four days off, plus call time and that he was to be compensated with a fixed salary. After the first week of employment the terms of the claimant's employment were re-arranged by moving him to five days on and two off, then the second week the hours were changed to nine days on and three days off. These adjustments created additional working hours without a salary adjustment. These adjustments were made by the employer without the claimant's consent. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Edward Lavoie
Date: 2002

CUB 55310 Umpire Decision - The claimant filed for benefits on November 26, 2001 indicating that he had quit his employment with Transport Solutions. The employer explained that due to a reduction in work in the chip production area the claimant was offered temporary work at another location but he refused because he wanted to be home on weekends. He states that his dispatcher had decided to give his route to a new driver and that he assigned him to new route without consulting him. The claimant asked if he could continue on with his regular work but the dispatcher said no and that his truck had to go. The Counsel for the Commission submitted that the decision of the majority was reasonable since the claimant could have tried his reassignment out for a few weeks before leaving. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Chester Dugas
Date: 2002

CUB 59280 Umpire Decision - The evidence that was before the Board was that the claimant had left her employment because her working hours and salary had been reduced and that the employer was defrauding the government and that the claimant was overworked and had a great deal of stress. The evidence that the employer brought before the Board was that the employer testified to the medical condition and personal problems of the claimant and argued that these were the sources of all her stress. The Board notes this fact of this testimony in its decision. Having heard and considered the testimony, the Board stated:

Having regard to all the circumstances including significant modification of terms and conditions with regard to the wages or salary and antagonism with the employer for which the claimant was not primarily responsible, just cause has been proven."

The Board did not err and they made a reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence before them. The appeal is dismissed.
Appellant: Valu Healthcare Realty Inc.
Date: 2003

CUB 61466 Umpire Decision - The information from the docket was that the claimant was hired as a machine operator but after ten months was asked to perform different jobs, and for that reason the claimant quit his employment. The Board found that the claimant was informed that he was to start doing a different type of work with no alteration in his pay or hours of work. The claimant pointed out that he was told that he could no longer work as a machine operator but he would have to do this other work, which he did not want to do. He also said that it was known that if he did not want to do the job that the employer had gave him, then there would be no job for him. Upon comparing the statements of the claimant and the suggestions of the Commission, Umpire Riche found that there was little room for negotiation between the claimant and the employer. It is the view of the Umpire that the claimant was hired as a machine operator and that his position should not be changed without consent. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Thambipillai Kanesalingam
Date: 2004

CUB 62188 Umpire Decision - The Board found that the claimant's, Fiona Corby, employer had significantly changed her work duties, mainly that her travel load was increased from three to five weeks during the first year of employment to 12 out of 16 weeks in the first four months of 2004. The Board also found that the claimant had tried to resolve the matter with her supervisor and had conducted a job search three months before leaving her employment. This showed that the claimant had demonstrated just cause for leaving her employment. Whether or not the claimant had just cause to leave her employment is a question of mixed fact and law and that the question for the Umpire is whether or not the decision reached by the Board was unreasonable. Umpire Stevenson could not find that the Board had erred in law or principle or that they based their decision on erroneous finding of fact. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 65136 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job while he was still in training for the position because he realized that he would have to work every weekend. He had not realized that his contract stipulated this when he was hired; he instead thought that he would have to work weekends occasionally. This schedule would have resulted in a family conflict for the claimant. It is clear that the job contract indicated that the claimant would have to work shifts but it did not specify that he would have to work every weekend. When the claimant objected, he was simply told that the schedule could not be modified. He expressed his displeasure and even before trying to make other arrangements, he was asked to sign his letter of resignation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 67278 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked at Sodem Inc. from November 25, 2002 to August 11, 2005. He quit because he was being assigned more and more tasks and given less and less assistance in doing the work. He did not complain about the situation to his supervisor. He did not slow down even though they were asking too much of him, because he wanted to make a good impression. He did not ask for a transfer either because he did not want to look bad or make negative comments about his supervisors. The employer stated that the claimant did not have to try to meet all the requirements he was presented by the city. She had also stated that other employees have found themselves in the same situation and that the claimant was the only one who quit. The Umpire found that the employer's representative acknowledged that there was excessive workload; furthermore, the evidence shows that the claimant's workplace lacked supervision. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 68188 Umpire Decision -The claimant was one of a group of workers who were seamstresses. Over the past year the employer had unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of wages and benefits. The employees had received no reasonable response to their concerns regarding changes. The employer accused the workers of slowing down on purpose and then again reduced their wages. The Umpire stated that it was clear that the employer had unilaterally changed the conditions of employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Shao Ping Huang
Date: 2007

CUB 68651 Umpire Decision- The claimant had stated that her job was stressful and that her duties had changed significantly. She had been hired as a shop maintenance person but over a year her duties had changed to basically a cleaner. The Umpire stated that sometimes it is determined that to argue significant changes in work duties it will have occurred over a shorter period of time but he felt that situation was not necessarily a requirement to show just cause. He found that claimant had tried to do the work but she was unable to do it. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gemma Alyward
Date: 2007

CUB 69082 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicated that he stopped working due to a shortage of work. The claimant stated that his employer notified him that work would be slowing down in Tofino and he was given an ultimatum: either be laid off or accept a three week temporary placement in a remote location. He did accept the three weeks where he was asked to work an additional month in the remote location however he refused the offer of continued employment because he had an obligation to attend to in Tofino. The Umpire found that the changes in the claimant's working conditions constituted just cause for refusing to stay in the remote camp and the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving when he did. Working in a remote area prevented him to search for other employment before leaving. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2007

CUB 70993 Umpire Decision - The claimant was dismissed (constructively) from a dental clinic after all of her shifts had been given away to a new employee. After her shifts were given away, the employer offered her shifts that the employer knew she couldn't work due to other commitments. At the hearing before the Board of Referees, the employer was represented by an accountant who's testimony was given less weight than that of the direct testimony of the claimant. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2008

CUB 77729Umipre Decision - The claimant stated he left his employment because of a change in his duties. The employer had assigned him additional duties and refused to hire the additional staff needed to cover these duties. The claimant needed to put in 60-70 hours a week to get all the work done. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

Multiple Jobs

CUB 57641 Umpire Decision- The claimant was working two jobs concurrently, when the one job offered her full time hours and better pay, she quit the other one. She also started classes while still working full time at the one job. Eventually the company had to lay her off do to the decline in air travel, which her job was connected with. The claimant finished her studies and began searching for a job in her field. She has since resume working at the one job. The Umpire stated:

"I cannot accept the interpretation urged by the Commission, namely that a person who works two part-time jobs is required to remain at both jobs, notwithstanding that the better paying of the two jobs becomes much closer to full-time. The interpretation of "another employment" in s.29 (c)(vi) must reasonably include a material change to a concurrent employment such that the changed employment could reasonably be said to amount to "another" employment. In this particular case, the change of the claimant's employment with Sky Chefs from periodic to effectively full-time was such a material change."

The appeal was denied.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 57411/A-328-03 - The claimant quit his part-time job to concentrate on his regular on call employment which had been giving him full-time work. He was notified three days after quitting the part-time job that he was being laid off from his other job. He was disqualified on the basis of quitting the part-time job. The Umpire reasoned that there was just cause to leave that part-time considering he had no idea that he was going to lose his other job. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2003

CUB 70103 Umpire Decision -The claimant was employed as a special education assistant as well as having another job. The claimant had quit a temporary job because she found holding two jobs to be too hectic. The Umpire found that the Commission and the Board of Referees treated the claimant's temporary job as sort of permanent part-time employment and refused to recognize claimant's teaching job as a full-time employment. The Board also failed to fully consider the claimant's explanation that holding two jobs became hectic and stressful and that her teaching duties were very intense. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

Natural Justice

CUB 51466 Umpire Decision - The claimant asked the hearing be taped, the hearing was recorded or so it said in the docket. After the decision by the Board was put in place she asked for a copy of the hearing so that she could prepare for her appeal to the Umpire, she enclosed a blank tape for this purpose. The claimant received a letter from the Commission that stated she would not be able to receive a copy of the hearing as it appears the tape recorder was not turned on. Due to the fact that no tape was available the Umpire granted the appeal on the basis of natural justice, it was returned to a newly constituted Board.
Appellant: Juanita Domingo
Date: 2001

CUB 52449 Umpire Decision - The claimant raised the issue of Section 29 (c)(iv) of the Act "working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety." The claimant had contacted the Workers' Compensation Board in regards to the safety issues, an inspection report from WCB was before the board that cited a number of safety issues as well as photos. The employer was present at the hearing and the claimant was on the phone, a considerable distance away. Since the employer was present and introduced new evidence without the claimant there it resulted in a denial of natural justice and a new hearing is to take place. The denial of natural justice was not done on intentionally by the Board. The appeal was returned to a newly constituted Board.
Appellant: Barbara Taylor
Date: 2001

CUB 53393 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she left the hearing and before the decision was rendered she went back to the hearing to retrieve a scarf that she had left behind. Upon entering the room the claimant found the Board and the employer representatives laughing and talking together. The problem with this is that the Board is to be truly independent of all the parties involved, if anyone on the Board knew any of the parties involved they should have stepped down from this hearing. A Board must not only be impartial but appear to be impartial. Due to this the claimant has been denied natural justice. The appeal was returned to a newly constituted Board.
Appellant: Laura Taylor
Date: 2002

CUB 53398 Umpire Decision - The claimant felt that his employer was trying to get rid of him for awhile, he had been a maintenance worker for many years but had been moved to the position of a fork lift operator, a position for which he had no experience or qualifications. The Umpire was quoted as saying:

"I think it is wrong for a Board to prefer the written evidence of someone who does not appear; and therefore, is not subject to cross-examination, to the testimony of a person who does appear, without expressing very cogent and relevant reasons for doing so. I am of the opinion, and find, that the reasons the Board gave, in its decision, were irrelevant to a finding of credibility. I find, therefore that the claimant has been denied natural justice. I allow the appeal and remit the matter to a newly constituted Board. This will give the claimant the opportunity to assure that the employer is there, either by subpoena or otherwise, at the new hearing if the claimant desires the employer to be present".

The appeal was returned to a newly constituted Board.
Appellant: Aidmoon Roel
Date: 2002

CUB 56052 Umpire Decision - The claimant is appealing the decision that he was denied benefits because he left his employment without just cause. The claimant has elected not to appear before the Board and has requested that the Umpire base his decision on the facts in the claim. The claimant moved from Parksville, B.C. to Calgary, Alberta, the Board hearing was heard in Nanaimo, B.C. As a consequence the question arises as to whether or not the claimant was offered the opportunity to make an appearance before the Board in person as opposed to his appearance by telephone. In an appeal letter to the Umpire the claimant felt that his hearing was impartially heard. As well, he felt that by only being able to answer the questions with a simple yes or no and that he was unable to elaborate on any questions that were asked. The appeal is allowed for two reasons, the first being that the hearing should have been referred to a Board in the Calgary area. Secondly, the claimant's complaint against the Board gives reason as to why the hearing should be reheard. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Darren Novakovski
Date: 2003

New Employment - Full Time to Temporary

CUB 38444 Umpire Decision - The claimant was disqualified for voluntarily leaving his employment without just cause. The claimant left his job to go to a temporary position with a good possibility of it becoming full time. When the full time extension did not materialise, the claimant applied and was denied benefits. The Umpire found that under these circumstances the actions of the claimant were reasonable. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Hugh Connon
Date: 1997

CUB 75312 Umipre Decision - The claimant worked part-time for Centre Féminin du Saguenay Inc. From November 19 to December 23, 2007. She worked part-time for another centre from January to November, 2007. While working at ¬Centre Féminin du Saguenay she applied for work with a number of other agencies and received an offer of employment from a government agency. To accept this new employment she first took weeks of training while maintaining her employment with the Centre Féminin du Saguenay Inc but when her training ended she felt she needed to quit this employment because her new employment required her to work weekends and fill in for holidays. Contrary to what she suspected, the claimant did not receive a request from her new employer to start work prior to February. She could have maintained her employment from late December to February. The Board notes that considering all circumstances¬, the claimant adopted the only reasonable alternative in her situation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 77331Umipre Decision - The claimant stated he left his employment for three reasons; there was a greater chance to be recalled in the spring, better hours with another employer, and a location closer to home. The new employment did not last as expected by the claimant who decided to claim benefits. The commission had determined the claimant had cause for leaving his employment as he had found new employment before quitting. The employer claimed that he has invested time and money in training costs on the claimant, and had the claimant continued with his employment he would have been full time and not collecting benefits. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2011

No Reasonable Alternative

CUB 23298 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked 15 hours per week - soon to be decreased to 10 -, required a car for this employment and was paid minimum wage. Her car starter needed replacing - which she could not afford to fix. Subsequently, she was often tardy for work and unable to carry out her work duties at times. The employment had become unsuitable and she was forced to quit. The Board of Referees erred in law as they concentrated on the lack of a job search prior to the claimant quitting rather than to the cause that lead to her actions. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lorraine Fisher
Date: 1993

CUB 34308 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been both working and attending a course when special course requirements forced him into altered hours of attendance. The claimant was required to leave his employment because of course requirements that interfered with his work schedule. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Edward J. Lane
Date: 1996

CUB 51648 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job after it was taken over by a new employer. The claimant and his father, who had formerly owned place, referred to a letter written by the new employer placing all of the staff on three months probation and affecting the current pay schedules. The letter went against the owner/staff agreement, the claimant and his father took the letter to the Labour Standards which ruled against it. The employer agreed that he had written it but then withdrew it. There was antagonism between the claimant and the new employer and the claimant spoke of being provoked and pressured to leave. The claimant's point of view was that a situation like this was intolerable for both the claimant and the employer. The result would have been the claimant being fired or him quitting. In these circumstances the Umpire felt that the claimant had no other choice but to quit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Benjamin Vanderleest
Date: 2001

CUB 52809 Umpire Decision - In this case, the claimant stated that he left his employment because he did not agree with his employer practices, in regards to safety inspections of the city buses. The claimant stated in his application for benefits that he attempted to rectify the situation but that when the subject was brought up at the meetings the management told them that the inspections were not important. He also later found out that if any problems arose the mechanics were blamed, not management. He also went on to indicate that before he left his employment he applied for four other jobs as well as three jobs since he left his employment. The employer also stated that the claimant had never raised the issue with his supervisor and that he could have contacted his union. In the evidence that the claimant brought forward he indicated that he did not report his concerns to the Ministry of Transport because he felt that it would not accomplish anything but leading to his dismissal. The appeal is dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2001

CUB 54416 Umpire Decision - The claimant, who was in her early 50's, moved from Nova Scotia to Edmonton in November 2000 for a job. She earned about $320.00 a week and was living with her sister where she paid for her food but not for her room. She was not making enough to rent her own place and to keep up with living expenses. She also had not intended or wanted the arrangement to be permanent. She decided for economic reasons to move back to Nova Scotia. The Umpire stated that the Board erred in law by not taking into account the economic factors. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dianne Pellerin
Date: 2002

CUB 56036 Umpire Decision - The claimant's father stated that his son has balanced work and school since he was 14 years old. The Board determined that the claimant left his employment to follow his parents and that he had intended to find a job, like he always had, while attending school. The Board found that the claimant did not fall into the meaning of just cause within the Act. According to the claimant's father, the claimant did not leave his employment to return to school. At the time the claimant was living with his parents and was working and studying at the local CEGEP. When his parents moved the claimant was 19 years old, he followed them and registered as a student at the closest CEGEP. The claimant was hoping to find similar employment as to what he had before as a grocery clerk. The Board failed to take into account the specific circumstances of the claimant leaving his employment. The fact is that the claimant moved with his parents to a location where he could continue his studies. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Maxime Lajoie
Date: 2002

CUB 58759 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he had been promised 5 days work, after which the employer stated that they had two days off. The employer promised a further two days work, but could not guarantee that there would be any additional work beyond those two days. The claimant indicated that he did not feel the additional two days offered by the employer were sufficient to justify the expense of returning home and then returning to the job site. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Daniel Wipf
Date: 2003

CUB 59247 Umpire Decision - The claimant, who lives in Edmonton, accepted employment in Nisku, which is 35 km south of Edmonton. The claimant's automobile developed a serious radiator problem which he could not afford to repair. There was no alternative transportation to and from work and taxi fare would have exceeded his daily gross earnings. As well, there were no living accommodations available in or near Nisku. The Board said that transportation was the claimant's responsibility and that he had not established just cause to leave his employment. The Umpire felt that the claimant had no reasonable transportation alternatives; therefore, there was no way that he could have looked for other work before quitting. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Patrick Townrow
Date: 2003

CUB 59368 Umpire Decision - The claimant gave the reason for leaving his employment that his employer owed him earnings that he refused to pay. The claimant also stated that he had brought this matter to the attention of the Ministry of Labour. The facts that the claimant brought forth were that he had to be present at the dance school from 11:00am to 11:00pm but he was only paid for the hours that he was giving dance lessons, and that these hours varied from 2 to 8 hours a day. The claimant also stated that he had quit before he received a reply from the Ministry of Labour because the working conditions would have become difficult as the result of his complaint. Umpire Goulard found it difficult to understand how the Board's majority could come to the conclusion that the claimant had failed to show the conditions of work were intolerable and quoted from CUB 12252 Umpire Decision:

"what claimants are not required to endure, however, is to be exploited, misled or constructively dismissed by their employers".

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robby Kilborn
Date: 2003

CUB 60083 Umpire Decision - The claimant had primarily quit her employment because her eleven year old son was struggling at school, and in the claimant's opinion, needed to be home schooled. The claimant was a teacher, and by reason of her profession, was able to assess the extent to which her son was falling behind in his school and the serious long term effects that were likely to result if the problem was not addressed. The issue of whether the claimant had other reasonable alternatives, short of quitting, were addressed by the Board. The claimant had asked for a leave of absence but was refused. She had also attempted to find other alternatives that would work for her, her son and her employer, but none were found. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 60877 Umpire Decision - The claimant was living and working in Woodstock where she was employed making $9.00 per hour but then her work hours where cut to 21 hours per week. As a single mother of a young child she found that this was not sufficient enough to pay for the necessities of life for her and her child, and she had gone into debt. The claimant had looked for work in Woodstock but the choices were limited so she decided to leave Woodstock and move in with her boyfriend in Windsor to save expenses and look for employment. Umpire Zalev stated:

"The board went off on a sociological discourse before reaching its conclusion that leaving her job and moving to Windsor is what a prudent person would have done; although I might have reached a different conclusion. The board, like a jury, is the voice of the community, bringing experience and commonsense into its deliberations and conclusions. I cannot say that it was not open to the board to reach the conclusion it did".

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 61259 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed by a telemarketing firm from November 26, 2002 to May 7, 2003. The claimant held an appointment as a provincial returning officer since 1970 and in 2003 was a returning officer for the electoral district of Cape Breton West. Although the election was not officially called until July 5, 2003, the claimant left her telemarketing job in anticipation of the election and because the Chief Electoral Officer required her to go to Halifax for training. The claimant's situation is out of the ordinary, but it was shown that the claimant had no other reasonable alternative than leaving. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ann Polegato
Date: 2004

CUB 62139 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed as a hardwood stacker for Simon Lussier Ltée for five days when the scaler called over to him, telling him to go inside when his feet were cold. It was very cold that day and the scaler said that he did not want a case of worker's compensation. Once the claimant was inside, his foreman told him that he should have spent the $250.00 to buy a pair of winter work boots but the claimant told the foreman that he did not have the money. Since there was no indoor work to offer the claimant, the employer allegedly urged the claimant to leave his employment. Despite the employer's statements, the claimant was never told that he could go inside regularly to warm up on cold days, nor was he told that he required boots that cost $250.00 a pair; he had bought a pair for $80.00 and added a felt insole. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 66284 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked as a pump attendant for Esso during his police science studies. He worked approximately 20 hours during the school year and full time during the summer. In the summer of 2005 the claimant decided to leave his job as a pump attendant to go work in the Magdalen Islands as a bike patrol officer. This job was in his field of studies in which he was eventually going to be working. The claimant confirmed his job in the Magdalen Islands before leaving his job in Rimouski. The Board of Referees found that the claimant's decision to leave his employment at Esso represented the only reasonable alternative in his case. The Umpire found the Board's decision was completely consistent with the evidence in the docket. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 66285 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she left her job at Tim Hortons before confirming her employment at the Centre de Santé because she worked at night and was too tired during the day to confirm another job. She added that she was certain that she was going to obtain the job and she did not think that she would have to file a claim for Employment Insurance benefits. The claimant was a graduate nursing assistant. She knew that she could find a job as a nurse but she had to take time to look for one. She therefore decided to leave her job at Tim Hortons. The Board of Referees concluded that the claimant did everything a reasonable person would have done to obtain employment in her field and avoid receiving Employment Insurance benefits. The Umpire found that the Board of Referees' decision was completely consistent with the evidence in the docket: supporting the Commission's position would be equivalent to asking claimants in the same position as the claimant not to accept the kind of job that she accepted, that was in a field that was not her own and that created difficult conditions that undermined her efforts to find employment that was in her field of expertise and that paid wages consistent with her training. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 66322 Umpire Decision - The claimant had completed a millwright pre-apprenticeship course in 2001. He was not successful in being accepted for a four-year apprentice program until October 2004. From June 26 to September 3, 2004, he was a self-employed fisher. He went to work as a welder with Concord Concrete Pumps Inc. on September 8 and remained in that job until October 19. A union accepted him for his apprenticeship on October 9 and on October 17 assigned him to a job with Getsco Technical Services at Hudson Hope. He left Concord and started work with Getsco on October 21. He was employed by Getsco from October 21 to November 10 and again from November 29 to December 31. The majority of the Board of Referees found that the claimant's leaving of his job to go to a 3-week job although a good personal reason, did not constitute for a just cause. Therefore they dismissed his appeal. The Umpire found that having regard to the claimant's desire to pursue a career as a millwright, something his dead-end job at Concord would never allow him to do, and the fact he had waited over three years for an opportunity to pursue that career, the claimant did not have any reasonable alternative to leaving Concord. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Brian Tilbury
Date: 2006

CUB 67299 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been employed as a general laborer until July 8, 2005, at which time she voluntarily left her employment. The claimant advised the Commission that she left her job because she did not have family or support in Edmonton after her husband left her to raise their two daughters on her own. She had three brothers and two sisters living in Abbotsford and they encouraged her to move there so they could help her and her daughters. Her sister-in-law promised to help her find a job and her children wanted to relocate to be close to their cousins who attended school there. The Commission determined that the claimant did not demonstrate just cause for voluntary leaving her employment because she had failed to show she had no reasonable alternative to leaving when she did and imposed an indefinite disqualification. The Board found that the claimant had reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future. One employer, an Abbotsford mushroom farm, offered her employment within a week or two. Before employment began, the claimant had returned to India as her father was gravely ill. Upon her return, on August 27, 2005, she went back to the mushroom farm, which employed her 5 days later. The Umpire found that in this case, there were unique circumstances which could be said to constitute just cause. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 67958 Umpire Decision - The claimant did not have the necessary personality and qualifications for a salesperson and the work requirements did not match his training. He left in order to seek employment that would better suit his qualifications and personality. The Commission determined that the claimant had not proven that he had just cause for leaving his employment. Reasonable alternative would have been for the claimant to continue working while looking for a new job, better suited to his expectations. The Board found that the claimant had started looking for other employment, but his efforts did not yield any results. The Umpire concluded that the Commission was not able to prove that the Board erred in law in finding as it did and in allowing the claimant's appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 68815 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left his job because of a divorce and financial problems and had also provided a medical which indicated that he was suffering from depression and anxiety. The Board of Referees reviewed the evidence and found that just cause could be found within the meaning of Section 29 c of the EI Act, that is "any other reasonable circumstances". The Umpire accepted that the Board had taken all the claimant's circumstances into consideration to make their decision and made reference to CUB 57874 Umpire Decision to support his decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 69198 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed by an automotive company when she voluntarily left her employment over issues of wages, equality of pay and unfulfilled promises of wage increases. The Board of Referees upon appeal found that the claimant had exhausted all the options prior to quitting. The Umpire determined that the claimant had no one else to turn to with her complaints as the previous employer was gone. Also this dispute over her wages was ongoing for a period of about two years in which there was plenty of time for the employer to resolve the issue by treating her equally with the other persons doing the same job i.e. the men. The Umpire determined that the claimant had no reasonable alternative but to leave. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 69262 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been suffering from a chronic illness. She saw a specialist who recommended surgery and also gave her a "leave from work" until May 23 when the doctor expected she would be ready for surgery. She was apprehensive of surgery and decided to seek medical advice in China. In May she asked her employer for a five week leave of absence. The employer denied her request and she voluntarily gave up her employment. The Board of Referees found that the claimant did not have just cause in leaving when she did because she didn't meet any of the 14 enumerated circumstances in the Act. The Umpire found that the Board erred in law when it only considered the enumerated circumstances and failed to apply the overall test of having no reasonable alternative. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2007

CUB 70990 Umpire Decision - The claimant refused to sign an office confidentiality policy because he had unresolved issues with the employer that he felt needed to be worked out before signing the policy. Due to the company being turned over to a new major stakeholder, the claimant had experienced a significant change in work duties, a lack of assistance, and pressure from the employer to leave the workplace. The employer had pressured the claimant to sign two agreements previously, and the claimant had received legal advice not to sign the agreements until the unresolved issues were worked out. Due to the claimant not being willing to sign the confidentiality policy, the employer had prepared the third and final warning for the claimant. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 77664Umipre Decision - The claimant explained that between December and January there was a significant decrease in work for his employer. The employer did not want to lay anyone off, but suggested the workers request leave without pay during the holidays. During his time off the claimant also said he checked with the union to see if there was any other work. He felt he was forced to take a leave and that in other situations an employer would have had to lay off. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

CUB 77957Umipre Decision - The claimant stated she had personal conflicts with her supervisor. The Board had found the claimant had exhausted all reasonable alternatives prior to quitting. The claimant had requested on a number of occasion to meet with her supervisor to resolve their issues, she had requested a transfer but declined it as it would be been reporting to the same supervisor. The claimant had requested an earned leave but it was denied. She said she looked for other employment prior to quitting, but lived in a very remote community. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2011

CUB 78198Umipre Decision - The claimant was renting a room at a residence of her brother. After an incident which the RCMP were called, she had to leave the residence within 24 hours. She decided to return home back to her family in Ontario. The facts pertaining to the claimant had not been considered. The Board had initially said the claimant did not look at other options before leaving, such as a leave of absence. The employer later said that a requested leave would have been denied. Housing in this area (Fort McMurray) is very high cost, and finding other accommodations in such a short time frame is difficult. It was found unreasonable to penalize the claimant for not requesting a leave of absence when it would not have been granted by the employer. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2011

No Reasonable Alternative - Multiple Jobs

CUB 47149 Umpire Decision - The claimant was working two jobs, one at the Quail Ridge Golf Course and one at the Lake City Casino. The claimant left her employment at the Casino with the intention of continuing on with the Golf Club. The claimant thought that the Golf Club would keep the dining room open during the Christmas season but she was laid off for the preparation of the construction of the new club house. The Umpire stated that in this case the claimant is not expected to keep two jobs in order to qualify for benefits and she is entitled, in good faith, to decide which of the two jobs she should have kept. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Vera Krajic
Date: 1999

Non-Renewal of Employment Contract

CUB 42956 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed by Excalibur Learning Resource Centre until his contract of employment expired. If there was a contract of employment, it was a conditional offer which consisted of the letter of intent setting out the salary and leave allotments. Being unwilling to sign, the proposal for employment, the claimant's contract of employment expired. There was no refusal of employment. There was a refusal to accept employment on conditional terms. Accordingly, there could be no refusal of employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Stephen H. Thomson
Date: 1998

CUB 56236 Umpire Decision - The claimant had given his resignation at Bluenose Atlantic Coastal Action Program because he believed that he had assurance of other employment and that his contract with Bluenose was coming to an end. When the new employment fell through he immediately went back to Bluenose and completed the project. It is only for the period following the completion of the project that the claimant is seeking benefits for. The Board erred when they found that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment within the meaning of the Act. There was a short voluntary leave but with the consent of the original employer he resumed his old job. The claimant's leave was not voluntary; he left because the project and contract he was hired for was complete. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kevin Rudderham
Date: 2002

CUB 56419 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed with CCHSA from September 18, 2000 until September 28, 2001. On October 15, 2001 the claimant applied for benefits stating that she quit her employment because her contract had expired and she wasn't offered a new one. Her perception was that the contract would not be renewed or that if renewed, it would be only for a couple of weeks to train a replacement. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

Obligation to Accompany a Spouse / Partner / Fiancé

CUB 24562 Umpire Decision - The claimant had cohabited with her common-law spouse for eight months prior to his transfer and her decision to leave her employment to join him. It is also noted by the Umpire that "the claimant's young daughter regarded her mother's partner as her father, that the weekend travel was placing stress on the family, and that the claimant and her partner were striving to provide a stable family life for their child." The issue the Board had to decide was whether the claimant had established just cause for leaving her employment pursuant to section 29 of the Act. The Board decided that the claimant had just cause for relocating because she had been living in a common-law relationship. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Roberta Ross
Date: 1994

CUB 25880 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked as a cashier in B.C. for 16 years and on September 27, 1993 voluntarily left this employment to move to Whitehorse, Yukon with her boyfriend (who has since become her common law spouse). At the time of her move she had a reasonable expectation that she would have employment at the store that her boyfriend was managing, however this did not occur till some 5 months later due to the selling of a store. The Umpire found this to be reasonable under the circumstances and that she had just cause for leaving her employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1994

CUB 27800 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment to follow her husband-to-be to Ottawa. He is a member of the R.C.M.P. and they met in Regina at the training college. The claimant had a son who had developed a de facto father-son relationship with the claimant's husband-to-be. When he was posted to Ottawa, the claimant quit her job in Regina and moved to Ottawa where they began living together. They had planned to marry sometime during the next year. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Wendy Johnson
Date: 1995

CUB 28344 Umpire Decision -In this case the Umpire held that the Commission could not impose a policy determining for benefit purposes that cohabitation periods are to be 12 months to establish a common law partnership, as if it were part of the legislation. In this case, the claimant left her employment to follow her common-law spouse with whom she had been living with for four months and planned to marry eight months later. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1995

CUB 33865 Umpire Decision/A-535-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The man whom the claimant had been living with in a common-law relationship for eight months and whom she apparently intended to marry, was transferred from Saskatchewan to New Brunswick. The claimant left her employment to join him. The Umpire reversed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant had shown she had just cause and no other reasonable alternative but to leave her employment, considering all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the parties had been cohabiting and planned to marry and in particular the long distance involved. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Joan E. Dueck
Date: 1996

CUB 34376 Umpire Decision - The claimant moved with her two children from Ontario to Vancouver in order to live with her fiancé. Despite the fact that the claimant had not establish the one year cohabitation requirement for common law status, the claimant showed that there was no reasonable alternative open to her. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Barbara J. Gardner
Date: 1996

CUB 34440 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment to follow her fiancé, with whom she had cohabited with on numerous occasions but not in a defined common law situation. Before she left the claimant sought advice from her local CEIC office, they told her that there would be no problems in receiving benefits because she was leaving to follow a future spouse. The Umpire stated that the facts showed that the claimant and her fiancé had been together for a long period of time, and that they had definite wedding plans before she moved. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Patricia E. Achterholt
Date: 1996

CUB 38048 Umpire Decision - The umpire found that moving to follow spouse to a new location is just cause for leaving employment. This is especially true where the family has, due to economic necessity, been required to remain apart from a period of time prior to claimant's relocation.
Appellant: Susannah Kosempel
Date: 1997

CUB 45398 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment to move to Flin Flon and establish a common law or de facto marriage relationship with a man she had met two years prior. Their relationship and commitment were serious. The claimant's partner had stable employment and owned a home in Flin Flon. If they were to establish a long term relationship it was more practical for the claimant to move to Flin Flon than for him to move to Winnipeg. In this case the Board found that no common law relationship had been established before the claimant left her job. The Board did not make any express findings of fact with respect to the time the claimant and her partner had spent together in the year prior or during the period in which they had commuted on weekends. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Marie Davie
Date: 1999

CUB 46334 Umpire Decision - The claimant had taken a buy-out package offered by his company, he stated that he did this because his wife's mother was very ill and that his wife was going back and forth between two cities to care for her. He felt that he had no other alternative but to take the buy-out so he and his wife could move to be closer to her mother. The claimant's wife felt a strong obligation to care for her mother and the claimant felt a strong strain on his marriage that would only be changed if they moved to be with his mother-in-law. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Andre Sexton
Date: 1999

CUB 46356 Umpire Decision/A-784-99 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The claimant moved from Pennetang to Barrie to live with her fiancé who had obtained a job in Barrie. The claimant and her fiancé had been living together for approximately 7 months and it was their intention to marry in the year 1999. She stated that she was not able to commute as she does not possess a driver's license. In CUB 27800 Umpire Decision, that the applicant moved her 4 year old son from Regina to Gatineau to live with her now husband, itself, demonstrates a committed relationship. Although there is no child involved, there is evidence of a committed relationship. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Pauline Laurin
Date: 1999

CUB 46950 Umpire Decision - The primary reason for the claimant leaving her employment was to move from Carstairs to Westlock. Later in the [EI] form, there is a space for explaining the reasons for relocating which is predominantly devoted to circumstances involving a move necessitated by a claimant following a spouse due to transfer or new employment...her decision to leave Carstairs was also fuelled by her desire to move away from her estranged husband whom she said was "making matters difficult for me"...charges were laid against her estranged husband...he had again made threats against both herself and her new partner as a result of which further charges were laid. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Dorothy Byrne
Date: 1999

CUB 49577 Umpire Decision - The claimant moved to be with her future husband and to seek full-time employment rather than stay at her job which was only casual. The Board found that the claimant should have remained at her employment until she had found a job elsewhere. The Umpire finds that the Board erred in their determination of the facts. They failed to consider the fact that the claimant only had casual employment and had to rely on employment insurance benefits on a seasonal basis. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Suzanne Perrier
Date: 2000

CUB 52998 Umpire Decision - In this case the claimant had cohabited with her common-law spouse for only a few months when she quit her employment to accompany him after he was transferred with his job. After the claimant's fiancé was transferred the first time, he commuted the 40 minutes to and from work on a daily basis. When he was later transferred a second time he found that commuting on a daily basis was impossible. The claimant then commuted on a weekly basis for two and a half months. On these facts the Umpire concluded that a long term, exclusive and committed relationship has been established prior to the claimant's move. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Veronica Gagnon
Date: 2001

CUB 54485 Umpire Decision - The Commission is appealing the decision that the claimant did not have just cause when quitting her employment with the RCMP. The claimant was employed as a Clerk (Firearms Registry) in Ottawa. Her husband was employed with Foreign Affairs and was due to retire on July 18, 2001. After his retirement he planned to return to his home province of British Columbia. In preparation to prepare for the relocation the claimant quit her employment on May 25, 2001. The key fact in this case is that the claimant left her job to follow her spouse, which given the long marital status was an obligation, which is what a reasonable person would do. The Umpire is also in full agreement with the Board when they say that the claimant's resignation, which was short of two months before her husband's retirement, was not unreasonable, considering the cross country move and the sale of the house. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

CUB 57194 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she quit her job to follow her husband to a different city where he could find a job. The move was permanent and the claimant thought that she could get a job in the city. The Umpire goes on to state that the Commission should not have the authoritative power to decide aspects in individuals personal lives as to the permanence of a relationship or the limits an inconvenience that a couple can tolerate without breaking a part. The Umpire states:

"Thus, the reasons prompting someone to quit a job to follow a spouse, seeing this as the only reasonable solution in her case, should be beyond strict government control and be given a broad and liberal interpretation inasmuch as this decision occurs in a generally serious and reasonable setting, as seems to me to be the case here."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ginette Pomerleau
Date: 2003

CUB 57229 Umpire Decision - The Commission is appealing the decision that the claimant left her employment without just cause. The claimant moved from New Brunswick to Vancouver to be employed as a legal secretary then two and a half years later she moved back to New Brunswick to be married. The Umpire quotes CUB 28188 Umpire Decision which reads:

"I understand that it is the Commission's policy to recognize application of paragraph 28(4)(b) [of the Unemployment Insurance Act, now paragraph 29(c)(ii) of the Employment Insurance Act] to a relocation prior to a pending marriage so long as the separation form employment takes place in reasonable proximity to the claimant's wedding day."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 58852 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated in her quit questionnaire, "My husband moved so I quit my job to go with him". The claimant's husband was given an opportunity to take an early retirement package and he took it. The claimant's husband then decided that their cottage was better home then where they were as well as he took into account that his income was going to be cut almost in half. The Umpire is convinced that the decision to move was one that was decided on by the husband. The claimant also stated in a written submission to the Board that she felt she had no choice but to relocate with her husband. The Board felt that the claimant did not look for work in Smith Falls, where the cottage was, and that there was no urgency to follow her husband. The Umpire felt the Board's reasoning was in complete disregard for the EI Act. The decision that the Umpire came to was done in harmony with the Federal Court of Appeal case of Mullin A-466-95 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Joan Rayner
Date: 2003

CUB 59802 Umpire Decision - The facts of this case include that the claimant was living with her boyfriend of ten months in Red Deer and was working part time at Heritage Lanes Bowling. Her part time employment was extremely part-time. The claimant's boyfriend had found full time employment in Regina, but while the relationship between the claimant and her boyfriend did not provide her with the obligation to follow a spouse, it was nonetheless a significant duration. Subsection 29(c)(ii) of the Act states that for a common law relationship to be considered it must be a relationship of a full year or longer. The relationship was one with which the claimant was financially dependent and a future wedding date had been set. The Umpire felt that the Board erred by dealing solely with the issue of whether or not the claimant's situation fell into any of the examples set out by the legislation rather than looking at the circumstances of her case. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Bobbie Desrosiers
Date: 2004

CUB 60857 Umpire Decision - This was not a simple case of a wife following a husband who is relocating; it was an unusual situation that required careful consideration and attention, which it did not get by the Board. The Board expected that the claimant was to maintain employment in Lindsay until her husband found a more suitable job in a new location. In coming to this conclusion, the Board disregarded the reason why the claimant and her husband were unable to seek new employment until their new residence was known. The Board also appears to have misunderstood the point that claimant's husband was not to, and did not, hand in his resignation until their new residence was established. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Cheryl Griffin
Date: 2004

CUB 62673 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that the reason she left her employment was to accompany her fiancé who moved to Ottawa for employment. She stated that her and her fiancé had been living together since December 2002, in her mother's home. She also indicated that she looked for work in Ottawa for two months prior to moving because she was not happy with her present job and felt that she could find a better one in Ottawa. The couple planned to marry but had not set a date. In their decision, the Board felt that the claimant had no other reasonable alternative but to move, given the seriousness of their relationship. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 67066 Umpire Decision - The claimant's explanation for quitting her job was that she had relocated from Windsor to Montreal in February 2005 in order to live with her partner. They were not married and did not have any children together. Based on this, the Commission had determined that the claimant had voluntarily left her employment without just cause and imposed an indefinite disqualification. The Board found that the appellant was in a stable relationship for the last two years. As a result she and her partner purchased a house together in Montreal and established the type of financial arrangements in a stable relationship. Therefore the Board agreed with that the appellant quit her job with a just cause. Given that the claimant and her boyfriend had never lived together, it is the Commission's position that they are not common law partners as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. When the claimant left Windsor, she did not leave her employment. She continued to work for her employer. In the spring of 2005 she was approached by Univar Canada in Montreal who unfortunately was unable to obtain the funding necessary to hire the claimant. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 68255 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment to move to British Columbia as she had become engaged to be married. The Commission denied her claim because they said she had failed to demonstrate that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving when she did. She had sought work in BC prior to moving. She thought she had a job but it fell through. The majority of the Board denied the appeal because she and her fiancé had not lived together for a year. The Umpire stated that Section 29 c: "is to be given a generous and liberal interpretation and it necessitates an assessment of all the unique and individual circumstances of each case in order for a determination to be made of whether just cause exists". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sandra Robbins
Date: 2007

Part Time Employment

CUB 51955 Umpire Decision - The claimant indicated that she quit employment because her salary wasn't sufficient enough to cover her living costs in Sudbury. The employer stated that they could not guarantee the claimant any number of hours a week. The employer also indicated that they were looking to expand their services to Elliot Lake and would be able to hire the claimant there when the business was set up. She offered to keep the claimant on the payroll. The claimant continued to look for work for two more weeks in Sudbury and then moved back home with her parents while still continually looking for work. In this case, the claimant lost her employment in August 1999 for reasons beyond her control, in keeping with her obligations she actively sought employment. The Umpire accepted the minority member's view that the claimant never really established an employment relationship, "to find otherwise would be to encourage unemployed individuals not to accept part time work where there is no guarantee of a minimum revenue or a guarantee of full time employment". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Tina Cloutier
Date: 2001

CUB 54002 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit his part time employment with Blunt Bros. to go into employment with the film industry. The Board majority can understand the claimant's desire to seek better paying employment, but he had a steady part time job that had no shortage of work foreseen at the time he quit. The facts show that the claimant was employed with Blunt Bros. for approximately 2 to 3 days a week, with an average of 76 hours a month; this could not be considered steady employment. He quit employment with proper notice and for the chance of a better paying job and a more secure future. In his letter of appeal the claimant pointed out that he needed all the film work possible in order to build up hours for his Union membership. He feels that he had just cause in quitting because of the conflicting schedules; he chose the job that would give him a career and paid 2½ times more than the other. The Umpire felt that the facts clearly showed that employment that consisted of 2 to 3 shifts a week is considered a job with a shortage of work. The majority also failed to consider that the claimant had studied in the film industry and that he chose to make it his career. The claimant had confirmed that he had employment before he chose to leave his other employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Bernard Lally
Date: 2002

CUB 61932 Umpire Decision -In her application for benefits, the claimant stated that she had left her employment as she was being paid for only 9.1 hours of work per week as a French language teacher, but she had to work 40 hours per week, including teaching, preparation and correcting assignments. The claimant wanted to look for full time work and wanted to be readily available to accept work at the local mill where she had been told that their might be job opportunities. In her letter of appeal to the Board, she stated that she had no experience but was told by someone that the school was looking for a part time French teacher and that she should apply, which she did. On her appeal to the Umpire, the claimant stated that the Board had failed to take into consideration her evidence which showed that she had accepted a position for which she had no training or experience and that she was simply not able to do the work. She also restated that it took more than 40 hours for the 9.1 hours she was not getting paid for, leaving her with no time to actively look for full time work. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Paula Maclean
Date: 2004

CUB 62035 Umpire Decision - The claimant was working part time for the AFN Education Authority and requested a leave of absence to work on a full time basis for another employer on a winter project. Following a discussion with his employer, he confirmed his request in writing. The claimant's evidence was that he had not received a reply and he presumed that his leave was approved. The employer, on the other hand, took the position that the claimant's leave had been refused and therefore left his employment. The Board accepted the claimant's evidence that he had received permission from his immediate supervisor for taking the leave. The Umpire stated that

"It is well established in the jurisprudence that Boards of Referees are responsible for the determination of facts, see Guay (A-1036-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal) and Le Centre de valorisation des produits de Tourelle Inc. (A-547-01 Umpire Decision). The Board gave the claimant the benefit of the doubt and is compatible with the evidence before them".

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

Payroll Problems

CUB 21854 Umpire Decision - The claimant complained about the shortage on his check on the first occasion that it happened; when it happened on the next pay cheque, the claimant quit. In this case, the Board applied the wrong test, they held that "circumstances must exist that make it virtually impossible for the claimant to continue in his employment" and that the claimant did not try to rectify the situation before he left by taking his problem to the Labour Relations Board. Umpire Reed stated:

"There can surely be a few causes for leaving employment that deserve the label of "just …" than leaving because one's employer is cheating them on one's pay packet. It is clear that there was just cause ... The claimant did what a reasonable person would do, he complained to his employer. The employer answered him in an arbitrary way (and then) another shortage occurred on … pay cheque."

This clearly shows that the claimant had just cause in leaving his employment (see CUBs 16631 Umpire Decision and 12252 Umpire Decision).
The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Roland St-Louis
Date: 1992

CUB 56646 Umpire Decision - The reason the claimant quit was that his pay cheque was rejected for insufficient funds. The next day after he had received his pay cheque he received another cheque with the full amount and his employer asked him to come back to work. The claimant stated that he would return to work if only he could be assured that he would get paid for his services. The employer explained that he would for another employee had agreed to forego her pay for the time being so that the claimant could be fully compensated. The claimant rejected this offer because he thought it was improper for another employee to be deprived of pay. The employer urged the claimant to come back to work in a letter which indicated the message that the employer was financially unstable. The Umpire found that the Board's findings were erroneous and perverse because they did not consider the evidence of difficulty with payroll. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Clinton Krenbrenk
Date: 2003

Permanent Employment to Temporary

CUB 68764 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left permanent part-time employment as a sales clerk/cashier to accept a temporary job placement with Adecco as an administrative officer. The claimant held a bachelor's degree in agronomy as well as a Ph.D. She accepted the temporary position because it matched her education and she hoped it might turn into permanent full-time employment. The Board took into account all the circumstances, her education and the fact she was not working in her field as well as the fact that the employment she had was of a part-time nature, 20-30 hours. The Umpire found that the Board had asked itself the correct question: whether, having regards to all the circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 70996 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left her part-time work in order to accept a full-time seasonal position that would provide her with the opportunity to advance her career. Due to the job being seasonal, the claimant was going to go back to school once work had stopped. The claimant also had assurance that her position would resume once worked picked up again. Although leaving a part-time permanent position for a full-time seasonal position is not always considered just cause for leaving, according to Federal Court of Appeal's decision A-75-07 Judgement Of The Federal Court of Appeal, all of the circumstances pertaining to the client's situation must be considered to establish just cause. The timing of voluntary leaving relative to the number of weeks left in the season are important circumstances to consider. Finding employment in the area that the claimant lived in is a regional problem, and the Board found that the claimant had taken clear and logical steps to improve her situation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Personal Reasons - Ethical Considerations

CUB 37586 Umpire Decision - The claimant was told to up sell customers and coerce them into buying merchandise they did not require. Claimant quit his job because he did not feel right participating in this practice. The Umpire found that with the choice of offending his sense of honesty, confronting the employer and refusing to perform his job duties or quitting, the claimant had no reasonable alternative but to quit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Garry Wiebe
Date: 1997

Practice Contrary to Law

CUB 51055 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he quit his job because of the long hours that required he be away from home too much and that his earnings fluctuated. The requirement to work a number of hours that exceeded the provincial Code should have been taken into consideration in assessing the claimant's argument that his working conditions were intolerable. The Board did not take into account that the claimant had tried to look for new employment before leaving his job. The explanations given by the claimant that his time and travel requirements coupled with the communications problems caused by being on the move most of the time, could not be ignored. These reasons were acceptable reasons for his lack of effort in finding employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Michael Leslie
Date: 2001

CUB 51219 Umpire Decision - The claimant applied for her vacation at the beginning of January but there was no response to her request until the end of February, but it was stated that February 15 was the deadline for a written response from her employer The claimant, under the assumption that her request would be accepted, booked her holiday time. The Board found the employer to be in violation of the Act as well as British Columbia law. The practices of the hotel were contrary to the law as well to the claimant's union contract. An act contrary to law, as cited in s.29 (xi) of the Act, does not require a grievance prosecution, all it requires is the practice that is contrary to law. It might be argued that the claimant had the reasonable alternative of staying in her employment, however, an employer that does not abide by the union contracts or by the laws of British Columbia is hardly a place where one wants to continue working. The fact that neither the province nor the union would enforce the claimant's rights is not relevant. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Linda Earl
Date: 2001

CUB 53401 Umpire Decision - The claimant brought forth that the employer permitted a work vehicle to have a number of deficiencies which were a safety concern and violations. The Umpire wrote:

"What were the options open to the claimant? He could look around for other jobs, but he would probably need a recommendation from his own employer, which may or may not have been complimentary or freely given. His options were limited."

The Board did not address any of the sub-sections in Section 29, some of which are relevant to this case. Rather then send this back to a new Board the Umpire substituted his own opinion for that of the Board's. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ilyas Muhammad
Date: 2002

CUB 56815 Umpire Decision - The claimant states that he had just cause for leaving his employment because of antagonism with a supervisor and practices of the employer contrary to law. The claimant contended that the employer had clawed back earnings on commissions he had earned and failed to pay the claimant statutory holidays. The Board dismissed this appeal with the comment that it was not an intolerable situation. The Umpire states:

"The Board's failure to properly address the antagonism issue would justify ordering a rehearing. The employer's failure to pay statutory holiday pay and clawing back earned commission were practices contrary to law which, in my view gave Mr. Yeadon just cause to leave his employment."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Malcolm Yeadon
Date: 2003

CUB 66594 Umpire Decision - The claimant had worked for the clothing company from May 2004 to December, 2004 when she voluntarily quit her employment. She worked during this period with a security company where she was laid off on November 30, 2004 and also worked in a Greenhouse from March 13, 2005 to June 10, 2005 and was again laid off because of shortage of work. Her reason for quitting her job was that she did not receive enough pay. She also stated that she quit because she was working 5 days a week from eight and a half to nine hours a day and only got two breaks of 15 or 20 minutes, and never got paid for statutory holidays and received no benefits. The Umpire found that the claimant did have a just cause for quitting her employment because the employer failed to pay her holiday pay as required by law in the province of Alberta. Under s.29 of the Act, one of the reasons that would provide an employee with just cause for quitting her employment is under subsec. 29(xi)- practices of an employer that are contrary to law. Another just cause is found under s.29(c)(viii)- excessive overtime work or refusal to pay for overtime work. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gurmeet Mann
Date: 2006

Reasonable Assurance of Employment

CUB 48120 Umpire Decision - Claimant was working 12 hour shifts (7am-7pm). On the way home from work one evening the claimant's car broke down, that same evening a friend of the claimant advised him that he could obtain him employment closer to home at a higher hourly rate. The following day the claimant was able to obtain a new job, and as soon as he was assured of new employment the claimant advised his employer that he was quitting his job. The claimant worked until the new company laid him off. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sylvester Collins
Date: 2000

CUB 49237 Umpire Decision - The claimant states that had he continued at his employment, he would have been disqualified from other projects posted through his union hiring hall. He states that he had "reasonable hope" of obtaining another position based on information from his union hiring hall before he left his employment and therefore his quit was justified. The Umpire states that he is satisfied that the claimant had reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert Winder
Date: 2000

CUB 51898 Umpire Decision - The claimant left his job because he was given reasonable assurance of a job through his father's employment in the near future as well as he moving to Newfoundland to care for his 17 year old daughter. The claimant showed that he did have reasonable assurance of employment as he secured a job 5 months after returning to Newfoundland. The Umpire stated that the fact that subsection (v)(i) of s.29c) states "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future" does not always mean the next day. The immediate future could be taken to mean a month or two. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sean Parsons
Date: 2001

CUB 53403 Umpire Decision - The Board did not specifically refer to the facts found but they did find that the claimant had a verbal offer of a job in British Columbia. The fact that the Board found the claimant did not only have reasonable assurance of a job but it was in fact an offer for a job. This is stronger than reasonable assurance, furthermore, this job was offered and the claimant accepted the position before he left his employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Mark Miller
Date: 2002

CUB 54396 Umpire Decision - The Commission pointed out in a letter from the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board that her position was not permanent and she would only be employed on an 'as-needed' basis. The Commission also pointed out that the claimant left her employment which was a part time job that was providing her with 60 hours every two week. The Commission also states that they talked with the claimant and that she did not expect to receive any hours in the near future, she also stated that she had to leave her employment because her employment with the School Board required that she be available on short term notice. The claimant also went on to say that she did not expect any work during the summer but that her employment with School Board offered more advancement and a better salary. This case is very similar to CUB 21694 Umpire Decision and the Umpire in this case followed the decision in that case. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

CUB 54820 Umpire Decision - The evidence before the Board in regards to reasonable assurance of other employment was as follows:

"The owner, Clem, had admonished her in front of customers, and she was disturbed by this. She went down the mall and into the bank, where she met someone from "Remember Cards and Things." She told this woman about how unhappy she was working for Squareroot Enterprises, and the woman told her that if she were looking for work, she would be interested in hiring her. They would go through the interview process, and likely she would be hired. Strengthened with this potential employment opportunity, the claimant returned to the store, and told the owner she was quitting. A couple of days afterwards she was interviewed by Remember Cards, and commenced working just over one week later".

The evidence showed that the claimant had reasonable assurance of employment when she quit and that the idea of an interview was more of a formality. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Debbie Prue
Date: 2002

CUB 54861 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed under a student work program for seven weeks. When she had completed six weeks she left her employment because she had received a call from a friend assuring her that she could obtain employment at a plant in Brampton, Ontario. It is in the Umpire's view that the interpretation of the word assurance coupled with reasonable means that there is a good chance that the person would be employed. It does not mean that a person will have a job waiting for them. In the Umpire's view a liberal interpretation of the legislation should be sufficient to allow for the claimant to rely on information that work was available and that she was likely to get work there to be a reasonable assurance under the Act. The Umpire also is clear that if employment results in the near future then employment was reasonably assured. As the Umpire states: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kirston Barnes
Date: 2002

CUB 58928 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been employed at Sears from September to November 2002, working 40 hours a week at $8.48 an hour. In November the claimant quit at Sears to take a temporary on-call position with Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. When the claimant started her new position she was unsure as to how many hours that she would receive, the facts that were stated include that the wage was higher and that from November 18 to December 12, she worked 200 hours and she only worked 17 hours from January 4 to February 10, 2003. The Board felt that claimant gave up a full time job to take a part time position; they felt that this did not constitute just cause under section 29(c)(vi). The Board felt that the claimant should have stayed at her full time employment until another full time position became available. The Umpire in this case stated that there was no reason for the claimant to stay at her full time position because she took on a position that was higher paying, as well the Umpire pointed out that places, such as the Liquor Corporation, do not hire full time employees. They will hire people part time or casual and will promote them to full time when they have proven themselves. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robyn Benmore
Date: 2003

CUB 59852 Umpire Decision - The claimant had quit his job with Northwest Glass after he was wrongly accused of drinking on the job. The Board found that he had just cause in terminating his employment because he had reasonable assurance of other employment in the near future. The claimant had been employed with AFGD Glass prior to taking his employment with Northwest Glass, while employed at Northwest Glass the claimant was contacted by AFGD offering him employment. At the time of the offer the claimant did not accept the employment, but after he quit at Northwest Glass he contacted AFGD, and within two weeks of his last day at Northwest and within one week of his last cheque, he was re-employed by AFGD. There was certainly evidence before the Board in regards to the relationship between the claimant and AFGD, which the claimant had likened to a standing offer of employment. The speed at which the claimant was rehired shows the validity of the relationship. The appeal was disallowed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 61276 Umpire Decision - The employer informed the Commission that the claimant had been hired for a minimum of six weeks work. The claimant, however, only made it to four weeks of work and said that he wanted to go to another job that he had arranged. The employer stated that all employees were hired for a six week period, and although the project started late, they were guaranteed they would get at least six weeks work. The employment, however, with the employer was supposed to be for six weeks guaranteed lasted eight weeks because of conditions. The claimant stated that he received a phone call from his wife who told him that his job was available in Vancouver, so he asked to be laid off. The claimant stated that he completed his contract as agreed and he worked until the ice went out. Umpire Riche was satisfied that the claimant had the right to quit his employment at the end of his term of employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Calvin Ford
Date: 2004

CUB 62603 Umpire Decision - The claimant had apparently left her job in order to better her opportunities and to earn more money. The position of the Board and the claimant was that the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment because she had reasonable assurance of other employment. The facts show that the claimant was only employed at the horticulture during the summer and it was not a full time position, and there was no indication that the employer would have kept her on. It was also pointed out that while the claimant was working Health Care Corporation, a labour dispute, which resulted in a strike, occurred. This could not have been known when she applied for the position. Umpire Riche, in considering the evidence before the Board, found that it was wise for the claimant to move from a low paying job to a higher paying job. The Umpire felt that the claimant had no reasonable alternative to moving from her relief job to a call in job which would probably last longer than where she was working. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 66126 Umpire Decision / A-339-06 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The claimant submitted that his main problem was that he could not be available for work with his union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and continue to work for the employer at the same time. The claimant alleged that he was in a situation where he had to choose availability for work with his union over work with the employer. Prior to working with the employer, the claimant had been terminated from his employment with an electrical company, due to work shortages. The claimant's union had no work for an electrician with his qualifications between September 2004 and January 2005, so the claimant registered with the employment agency. The claimant was able to work approximately 20 hours per week, as a general laborer and not as an apprentice electrician. The Commission found that the claimant was ineligible under sections 29 and 30 of the Act, because he had voluntarily left his employment with the temp agency without just cause. The Board unanimously allowed the claimant's appeal. The Board noted that because of the information received from the dispatcher at the hiring hall, the claimant expected immediate employment in his chosen profession. The Board was convinced that the claimant had no reasonable alternative because it was impossible to become available for employment as an apprentice while attached to the Staffing Edge. The Umpire found that the Board was clearly cognizant of the correct legal test, as the test was enumerated in the Board's reasons. In addition, the Umpire also found that the Board did effectively apply the legal test to the facts of the case, in finding that the claimant was not able to be available for employment in his chosen field if he remained employed by the staffing agency. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 66481 Umpire Decision - The claimant was hired through his employer, The Westchester Staffing Group Ltd., to work at BFI Canada. He had been told by the Westchester Staffing Group Ltd. that he could take holidays in early November to go hunting. When the time came to take his planned holidays, BFI Canada refused to let him go. He then contacted The Westchester Staffing Group Ltd. and was told he could go and they would have him work for another client when he returned. When he did return, The Westchester Staffing Group Ltd. advised him that he was considered as having abandoned his job and he could not return to work for them. They denied having approved his holidays. The claimant had indicated he had worked for almost two years without taking any holidays and felt he was entitled to take them. The employer took the position that he could not take time off because it was not approved by BFI Canada. The Board found that the relationship between the two employers was confusing and the claimant had had his holidays approved by his primary employer. The Umpire found that the Board reviewed the claimant's and the employer's evidence and arrived at a decision that is compatible with the evidence before the Board. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: The Westchester Staffing Group Ltd.
Date: 2006

CUB 70452 Umpire Decision - Although the claimant did not have the guarantee of employment, the claimant had two word of mouth job opportunities, and then moved to Alberta to get employment in the forestry sector. The Board established that the claimant had a reasonable assurance of employment based on the facts presented when the claimant left her employment with home care services. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

CUB 71284 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left a permanent position because he had been offered a contract position as a child protection worker in Republic of Sudan, but was not issued a Sudanese visa. While leaving a permanent position for a contract position may be good cause for leaving employment, it may not always be considered just cause. The position of the Commission was that the claimant had the reasonable alternatives of securing a visa before quitting, asking for a leave of absence from his permanent position, or asking for his old job back when he was denied a visa. As well, the Commission felt that the claimant did not have reasonable assurance in the future as a child protection worker. Child protection is a field in which there are promising job prospects and often a shortage of labour. These conditions have been established in Federal Court of Appeal's decision A-75-07 Judgement Of The Federal Court of Appeal as providing a "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future". The Umpire concluded that the Board of Referees made a reasonable decision in regard to the client's circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Resignation

CUB 13930 Umpire Decision - The claimant submitted a conditional resignation to the employer and because the employer did not accept the conditions which would give effect to the resignation the claimant cannot be said to have thereby voluntarily left his employment. The Umpire reasoned:

"In my view a conditional resignation is not a resignation which can be accepted unless, at the same time, the conditions are accepted as well. The corporation was not entitled to accept the claimant's resignation and reject the conditions. When it purported to do so and instructed the claimant to vacate his office it terminated the claimant's employment by means of a dismissal. While the claimant's conditional letter of resignation may have initiated the events which resulted in his loss of employment, it cannot be said, under the circumstances of this case, that he voluntarily left his employment."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Francis Ireland
Date: 1987

CUB 27487 Umpire Decision - The claimant says that she was wrongfully dismissed for the reason that she was not allowed to work out her resignation as tendered. When the manager received the letter of resignation she demanded that the claimant leave immediately. According to the claimant the employer used harsh words and had the claimant escorted off the premises. The counsel for the claimant cites CUB 13930 Umpire Decision. The employer did not meet the conditions that were set out in the resignation letter and did not permit the claimant to stay in the office until the last day of work mentioned. Claimant was asked to go home immediately. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean Frewer
Date: 1995

CUB 75881 Umipre Decision - The claimant was absent from work for two weeks because both of her daughters were seriously ill. When calling her employer to see if she could return back to work, the employer stated that it must talk to someone as she had missed a great deal of work. Afraid of losing her job, the claimant began looking for other employment. Before receiving a call, the claim¬ant sent an email to her employer indicating that she needed a job that paid more and explained she would understand if the company wanted to hire someone else. The employer answered the email by indicting that the email was considered the claimants resignation. The claimant argued that she had never signed a resignation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Resignation - Forced/Coerced

CUB 47980 Umpire Decision - This claimant and a co-worker were both employed at the Empire Theatre in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. On the day in question there was a shortfall in their accounting of about $25. This mix-up in money was fully accounted for on the following day. After spending considerable time attempting to reconcile their accounting, the claimants were individually interviewed by management. At the time of these interviews the claimants were brought into the offices of management, and because they could not satisfactorily explain the shortfall, which eventually turned out to be the fault of others and neither of them, they were then asked to sign letters of resignation. The Umpire found that the claimants were coerced by management into signing the letters of resignation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kimberley Bruce
Date: 2000

CUB 59526 Umpire Decision - The Commission felt that the claimant had voluntarily initiated the separation from his employment when he decided to accept a nomination to the School Board and to resign from his position, when he had the option of refusing the nomination. He knew that he could not hold both positions and that by running for the Board, the claimant had decided to put his employment at risk. The Commission also argued that even if the claimant had been granted a leave of absence, as he claimed that he should have been entitled to, he would still not be entitled to benefits. The Commission submitted that the Board failed to consider that he had a reasonable alternative to leaving his employment that is to not run for the Board of Education and keep his position as Director of Education. The claimant's counsel submitted that the Board had considered the claimant's position and concluded that the claimant had been put in a position where he had no reasonable alternative as the Education Authority had put in place a situation that lead the claimant to believe that he was being pushed out of his position. The appeal was disallowed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 68091 Umpire Decision - The claimant had given the manager of her store advanced notice that she could not work overtime because her friends had organized a birthday party for her. Then on the day of the party the manager asked her to stay overtime. The claimant refused and the manager had her sign a paper which the claimant signed without realizing it was a resignation. The Board found that the resignation was coerced from the claimant and accepted her statement that she would not have signed it otherwise. The Umpire stated that in the circumstances there was undue pressure to leave her employment. The appeal was dismissed
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

Retirement

CUB 46486 Umpire Decision - The claimant was teaching school when a new collective agreement went into effect. This agreement integrated the Teachers' Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan, the effect of this would have caused a loss of $65,000 and $69,000 in pension income over the years she would be receiving Canada Pension benefits. The Umpire felt that the claimant had no other reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. It is quoted in the CUB by the Umpire that:

"In Ms. Halfyard's case her age (54 at the time) and the time remaining before her eligibility for a teacher's pension (14 months) are also relevant circumstances. The Commission says it would have been a reasonable alternative for her to continue teaching. She was entitled to make a decision, not just with regard to her immediate future, but with an eye to her future financial security. The question is whether she had no reasonable alternative. Having regard to the circumstances of the potential loss of pension income, her age and her approaching eligibility for retirement, I find that Ms. Halfyard did not have any reasonable alternative to leaving her employment when she did."

Appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Doris Halfyard
Date: 1999

CUB 46561 Umpire Decision - There was a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting pension from her employment. That is analogous to a change in wages or salary and is a circumstance to be taken into account. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Yvonne Dawe
Date: 1999

Sexual Harassment

CUB 66923 Umpire Decision - The claimant had stated that she had left her employment because of improper advances of a sexual nature by her employer. The advance was so direct that she left and filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. The employer denied any improper conduct or advances as alleged by the claimant. The employer indicated that the claimant left her employment when her request for a pay raise was refused. She stormed out of the office where she was meeting with the employer, packed her personal items and threw the keys at her supervisor. The employer denied any such conduct claiming that she was making her accusations for monetary gains. The claimant stated that during her last meeting with the employer, he had refused to give her the raise she was asking for but suggested that there could be a private arrangement between the two of them. This is when she left. The Board dismissed the employer's appeal, finding the claimant to be credible in her statements. The Board noted that there was an element of subjectivity in allegations of sexual harassment and that "it may well be that sexual harassment claimed was perceived as such by no one except the claimant". The Umpire found that the Board took all the evidence into consideration in arriving at its decision which is supported by evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: 1487316 Ontario Corporation
Date: 2006

Significant Changes in Work Duties

CUB 70244 Umpire Decision -The claimant worked with her employer for about three years. The reason for leaving her employment was that she was working too many nights alone as a dishwasher and needed help. No changes were made by her employer to accommodate her. When she quit, her employer hired three more personnel. The Board found that due to the claimant wanting part time work but receiving only full time and due to the fact that her requests for a change from night shift were ignored, her appeal should be allowed. The Umpire found that the claimant was overworked and not fairly treated or listened to by her employer as was evident in that no extra help was hired until the claimant quit. The claimant's contract was also for part-time work which turned into full time work. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Significant Modification of Wages or Salary

CUB 51146 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he was hired to drive forklift and would work when the fish came in. While they where waiting for the fish to come in he was also doing other jobs, including driving the forklift. When the fish came in the claimant asked about breaks but was told that they got no breaks until they were done. The claimant also told that he would receive a raise but never did; when he was denied the raise he quit. The claimant was very truthful in his account of what happened. From his account he found it difficult to work with this employer and work under the conditions that were placed before him. The claimant was hired as a forklift driver but was required to clean fish; he would sometimes go 6 or 7 hours without something to eat and he was promised a raise that he never received. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Daniel Russell
Date: 2001

CUB 51742 Umpire Decision - The employer stated that the claimant left his employment because he was unhappy with the wage he was receiving. Throughout the docket there were complaints by the claimant of discrimination and unfair labour practices as well as a reduction of the claimant's rate of pay. The only justification that the claimant gave for leaving was that his employer reduced his hourly wage rate. The employer stated that he had experienced problems with the claimant, because the problems didn't improve following discussions with the claimant; rather than terminate the claimant's employment, the employer reduced his hourly wage by $2.00. The employer acted without the claimant's approval, the claimant objected and decided to quit. The reduction of $2.00 an hour for an eight hour day means a reduction of $16.00 a day. Based on a five day work week, the weekly loss amounts to $80.00 and approximately $345.00 a month. The reduction is surely a significant modification of a term respecting wages and provides the claimant with a reason of "just cause" for leaving. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Siegfried Peter
Date: 2001

CUB 54874 Umpire Decision - The claimant discussed the wages with the employer's wife and suggested that he receive $14.00 an hour. After the claimant had started work he was told that he would be paid $10.00 an hour. All of this took place in two days. The claimant told the employer that he was not in agreement with the wage because he needed more to live. He was willing to work for $12.00 an hour but was only paid $8.00. It seems that in the short two day time period there should have been an agreement as to what the wage would be, but there was none. The further evidence shows that the employer was abusive to the claimant. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Carl Burns
Date: 2002

CUB 57331 Umpire Decision- The claimant stated that her reasons for quitting were due to problems with hours and wages. The claimant went on to state that from the start of her employment she had been paid time and half on Saturdays and double time on Sundays which was company policy. On two consecutive pay cheques she found that she was no longer being paid extra for working on weekends and enquired with her employer about the change. She attempted to discuss the issue with her employer and was told that if she did not like the change she should quit. She again tried to discuss the change with her employer and was told that she was being disloyal to the company. This resulted in an antagonist relationship with the employer and it would have been difficult for the claimant to continue to work at the job. The appeal was disallowed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 57948 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed by Oriental Interiors for over ten years; through out this period the claimant worked a five day work week and was being paid $13.00 an hour. On October 31, 2001 the claimant was informed that his work time would be reduced from five days to three days, starting November 1, 2001, due to a lack of business. The employer stated that this was only temporary and that the claimant would return to five days when business picked up, but the claimant was given no assurance as to when that would likely occur. The claimant stated that his working hours were going to be cut by forty percent; the claimant stated that the reduction in his wage would be insufficient to support his family. The Board completely disregarded this legislation and felt that the claimant could have stayed employed at the business until business picked up or he found another full time position. The Umpire in this case stated that "a forty percent reduction in the income of any person is a circumstance of substance." The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sam King Wai Pang
Date: 2003

CUB 61508 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed at Superstore in the bakery for many years. The claimant was accepted as a student at Assiniboine Community College, but according to the evidence, at the time she applied, the claimant had not intended to return as a full time student. However, the situation with her new supervisor had caused her to consider going to school part time at the community college, as she had done with night school. The claimant spoke with her new supervisor about her working part time, rather than full time, but she was told that she could not reduce her hours to part time. The claimant was told that she would have to quit and then reapply as a part time employee at the same salary. This information from the supervisor was incorrect. Her union was also unable to help because she had quit voluntarily, even though she had done so as a result of misinformation from her supervisor. The Umpire disagreed; he felt that the claimant was left no chance but to leave after receiving misinformation from her supervisor. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 68403 Umpire Decision - The claimant quit his employment because the employer was not paying him the travel allowance which was provided for in the collective agreement. The claimant gave the employer the opportunity to correct the situation when it occurred. The employer promised to do so on the next pay check but didn't do so. The claimant didn't file a grievance but the Umpire said that it was not necessary to do so. Under the circumstances the claimant was owed the money and should have been paid. The Umpire felt he did what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claude De Champlain
Date: 2007

CUB 70293 Umpire Decision - For ten years, the claimant had worked in a textile factory, but was then transferred to a sock company. At the sock company, the claimant's wages went from being salaried to hourly with rotating shifts and no guarantee of 40 hour work weeks. The claimant would also lose his health benefits. The employer alleges that the claimant removed products from the plant, but there was no evidence to corroborate this claim. In the circumstances surrounding changes to wages and benefits, the claimant had no reasonable alternative, but to leave. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Employer
Date: 2008

Terms of Employment - Employer Breach

CUB 41225 Umpire Decision - When the claimant started work for First Heritage Insurance he was told his probationary period would be 6 months. However, these initial terms were to be extended for another 3 months - delaying certain benefits and consideration of salary. The employer was found to have breached the terms of employment which had allowed for a 6 month probationary period. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kenneth McDermid
Date: 1998

CUB 58443 Umpire Decision -All the employees in the workplace were required to do an exercise routine prior to working. The claimant refused to do these exercises and was told that if he did not participate he would have to leave. The Board felt that because the claimant had shown up for work the next day, it indicated that he had accepted his job. The Board also concluded that the appellant did not demonstrate just cause by refusing to partake in mandatory exercises. The claimant had stated that he was not told of the exercise program until his second day of work. The Umpire based his decision on the fact that the claimant did not agree to the work conditions, he went to work on the first day as an orientation day and the second day was considered his first day; he was unaware of the exercise program. The Umpire felt that no contract of employment was concluded; the conditions of employment were not accepted by the claimant after becoming aware of what was expected of him. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Brian Macleod
Date: 2003

CUB 67409 Umpire Decision - The claimant left her employment due to issues of reimbursement for extensive work related travel, request for payment hours worked as opposed to time off and the number of vacation days. She indicated that she had spoken to her employer about these issues on a number of occasions but her attempts proved to be unsuccessful. The Commission advised her that it would not pay her benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without just cause. She appealed this decision to a Board of Referees which unanimously allowed her appeal for the following reason. Claimant said that extra hours required her to do extensive local kilometers and employer refused to reimburse expenses. The Umpire found that there was sufficient evidence before the Board to support its conclusion that the claimant did not voluntarily leave her employment without just cause. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 67679 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been employed by his employer as an apprentice mechanic. He stated that he had been told he would be working on all aspects of a vehicle, engine repairs, electrical repairs, diagnostics, etc. He was initially working in all these areas but following differences with his employer, in regard to personal issues, his duties were changed and he was given reduced jobs such as cleaning the shop and doing oil changes. He was of the view that the employer had significantly changed his duties. He also tried to discuss the issue with the employer but he was always avoiding him. In his appeal to the Board of Referees, the Board found that claimant's duties were substantially changed and that this constituted just cause for leaving his employment pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act. On appeal, the employer submitted that the Board had erred in its determination of facts. The Umpire found the Board's decision entirely compatible with the evidence; the employer had not shown that the Board erred in its decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Common Sense Automotive Inc.
Date: 2007

CUB 67921 Umpire Decision - In the appeal before the Board, the claimant submitted that he suffered unfair treatment at work, when the employer offered him the position of foreman, only to later change this decision and give the position to a much younger employee with little experience. The claimant became upset and left work for a week without indicating that he quit. When he contacted his employer over the phone, the employer stated that he was putting "quit" on the claimant's record of employment. The claimant had been working with the company for 10 years. The Board of Referees found that the claimant had just cause for leaving. The claimant was upset and the employer made no attempt to discuss the matter with the claimant. The position of the Commission is that the Board of Referees erred in law when it failed to consider all of the evidence presented. The Umpire found that although the claimant could have continued on working, there was a breach of agreement made between the employer and the claimant. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 72163- The claimant had been employed as a physician assistant. When the claimant went to work, she found that she wasn’t doing the work of a physician’s assistant but was doing other tasks as well as that. The claimant was hired for one position, yet in reality she had to perform another, for that reason the Umpire is satisfied that she had no reasonable alternative but to leave her employment when she did. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2009

Training Program/School

CUB: 17986 Umpire Decision -An unfortunate misunderstanding took place in this case. He had been on the course the preceding year as an approved student and it is not disputed that a Commission employee indicated to him that he would be approved again. He therefore left his employment in order to take the course, only to find that he had not been formally directed to it yet. There was nothing to indicate that the direction would have retroactive effect to the commencement of the course. The Umpire said:

"While he may have been somewhat precipitate in leaving his employment without having had a written direction to the course, it is not denied that he had been verbally told that he would be directed to it if the course started on January 22, 1989 leaving his employment on January 20 in order to commence the course should not I believe be considered as having left it 'without just cause" within the meaning of the Section of the law."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: George Quinnell
Date: 1990

CUB 34308 Umpire Decision - The claimant was studying for a degree in Physical Education, while he was attending school he was employed. At the end of October, the claimant was required to volunteer with the Children's Movement Program from 8:00am to 3:00pm, every Saturday, as a part of his degree program. The volunteer hours conflicted with his weekend hours at The New Majestic and the employer was not able to change his working hours. On the ROE from The New Majestic, the employer put as the reason for leaving as "return to school", but it is debated that the claimant did not quit to return to school but to meet the requirements of his course. The claimant had a history of working and studying at the same time, as well, the claimant was available for work during hours that did not conflict with his course requirements. The Umpire states that he would make a distinction between a person who leaves employment to enroll in university or college and one who is enrolled already and has to give up a job in order to meet his course requirements. In this case, the claimant had no reasonable alternative other than to quit. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Edward J. Lane
Date: 1996

CUB 54372 Umpire Decision/A-433-02 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The Board found that the claimant was a 'part-time' corrections officer and that he was 18 on a list of 21 on the seniority call-ins. The claimant had left part time employment for one that assured him of full time employment. He stated that he had been accepted to the RCMP and that all he had to do was finish his 22 weeks course. The Umpire felt that he left his employment with reasonable assurance of another employment. He indicated that if he should not finish his training he could return to his employment with the Province of Manitoba. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

CUB 55075 Umpire Decision - The claimant enrolled in a hospitality course and intended to continue working at her employment while enrolled. Because enrollment for the course was sparse it was cancelled and moved to another campus. The claimant had the choice of transferring, which she did to a campus that was 90 minutes away. Due to this she gave up her employment and attended the course during the week, on weekends she did unpaid course assignments at hotels in the area. This is not a case where the claimant left her employment to attend school. If the course would have been offered in her area she would have continued working. The Board erred when it did not take into account the special circumstances because of the course cancellation. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Paulette Pearson
Date: 2002

CUB 57750 Umpire Decision - The employer confirms that the claimant had been laid off from her job because she was returning to school. The claimant told her employer long in advance that she was leaving to return to school in which the employer replied that it was respectful of her but if she had waited until the last minute she would have probably kept her job until the end of August in which she had told the employer that she could work till she went back to school in September. The Umpire submits that the claimant's departure from her employment was a result of her employer's needs and not that of the claimant's, for the claimant had informed the employer of her desire to work until the end of August. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 61352 Umpire Decision - The claimant was working for A&W and wanted to return to school. Prior to her leaving, she was not scheduled for work during the week following July 22nd. She states that she did not quit, nor was she laid off; there was just no work available. After that, a week or two, the claimant went on holidays and was not called back to work. She said that because there was no work for her she decided that she was going to go back to school. The Board found that the evidence shows that she was laid off because there was no work available at A&W. In the opinion of the Umpire, the claimant did not quit her employment, there were just no hours for her and she was not being called back. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 61362 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been employed as a detailer at a car dealership for minimum wage. In 2002 he applied to take the two year carpentry course offered by the Nova Scotia Community College. There was evidence that the claimant had been approved by HRDC for financial assistance to take the course. Unfortunately the course was cancelled for that year. In September 2003 the college called the claimant and offered him the chance to enroll, he promptly quit his job and enrolled. The claimant relied on the fact that he had been approved for assistance in 2002 and assumed that he would be eligible for assistance in 2003. The Umpire said: "in those circumstances continuing to work for minimum wage was not a reasonable alternative". The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 64919 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been attending university for several years while working at one or more jobs during her studies. In the spring of 2004 she accepted a summer job and indicated she would be returning to university in the fall. When she left her employment, she resumed her employment with one of her other employers. She later had to leave this employment due to health reasons. The previous employer indicated they would have kept her had they been able to offer working hours that could accommodate the claimant's university schedule. The claimant was nearing the end of her university program with only a few credits to complete. This limited the choices she could take. The Board allowed the claimant's appeal since she has had a very good history of part-time work and attending classes. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2005

CUB 69183 Umpire Decision - The claimant filed his claim effective November 16, 2003. The claimant indicated that he had left his last employment to undertake studies recommended by an employment counselor with Emploi Quebec. It was later found that the program the claimant attended had not been formally approved by Emploi Quebec. The Umpire found that the Board could on a balance of probabilities find that the claimant had good reason to believe that he had been referred to the course. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 71447 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed as a ticket agent, and had taken a leave of absence to complete a Bachelor of Arts degree to improve her French skills. Due to being a ticket agent, the nature of the claimant's work is seasonal and she did not get as many shifts during the off-season. Although the claimant may have had good cause in taking a leave of absence, there was no dispute that the claimant did not have just cause pursuant to the Employment Insurance. However, the claimant is only disentitled up until the point that the claimant returns to work. The claimant returned to work on a casual basis, and was able to prove her availability to the Board of Referees. During the period of time that the claimant was finishing her degree, the claimant accepted all shifts that were made available to her even missing school at times. On the issue of availability, the Umpire ruled that the Board of Referees made a reasonable ruling and secondly, the claimant is only disentitled up until the point that she returned to work. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Trial Employment Period

CUB 15680 Umpire Decision - The claimant had tried an employment for three days before she realized that it was not suitable. The Umpire is quoted as saying:

"This umpire, with some time to reflect, now proposes to express a rigid rule of universal application. It is this. A claimant seeking suitable employment is, after a short time (not defined) of trying out the offered job, just as entitled to raise just cause for voluntarily leaving if it be not suitable employment, as the claimant who refuses the job because it is not suitable employment is entitled to raise good cause for refusal. A bench-mark for a reasonable time (not defined) would be about one month in the new job to get to know it thoroughly, for usually after about one month the claimant as employee would appear to be waiving any and all objections to the employment's suitability and would in fairness be estopped - or simply not permitted - to quit voluntarily without some independently demonstrable "just cause"."

The appeal was allowed.
Claimant: Jennifer M. Sicoli
Date: 1988

CUB 53563 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that she went for one day of work to see if she could carry out the duties or not. She stated that the next day she was unable to put her clothes due to extreme swelling in her arm, she also believed that she would not be paid for the one day because she thought it was a trial period to see if she could do the job or not. She never returned to work there and she didn't think that she quit because she never believed she had actually been hired. The Umpire believed that the claimant was not really hired by the Travel Lodge and that she had only went for a "try out." The claimant should have been given the benefit of the doubt in regards to the fact that she never realized that she was hired so why should she have given her notice to leave the employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Julie Anne Brown
Date: 2002

CUB 76402 Umipre Decision - The claimant was an apprentice when he went to Alberta seeking employment between “blocks” of training in the summer of 2007. In 2010 the Commission advised the claim¬ant its investigation revealed he had voluntarily left employment during that summer resulting in an overpayment and penalty of some $3070. The claimant appealed and the Board found in his favour with respect to the voluntary leaving as well as the penalty and notice of violation. The claim¬ant held several short-term jobs in Alberta 3-years prior. He had forgotten about one, but later clarified it. The Umpire referred to CUB: 15680 which referred to trying out an offered job.

In CUB 18665 Muldoon J wrote:

In Socoli, CUB 15680, the umpire held this:

A claimant seeking suitable employment is, after a short time (not defined) of trying out the offe¬red job, just as entitled to raise just cause for voluntary leaving if it be not suitable employment, as the claimant who refuses the job because it is not suitable employment is entitled to raise good cause for refusal. A bench-mark for a reasonable time (not defined) would be about one month in the new job to get to know it thoroughly, for usually after about one month the claimant as employee would appear to be waiving any and all objections to the employment’s suitability and would in fairness be estopped- or simply not permitted- to quit voluntarily without some indepe¬ndently demonstrable “just cause”.

Here the claimant worked the required number of hours during the summer to resume apprentice-ship training and benefits. The error he made in his reporting to the Commission was found by the Board to have been corrected. The Board then went on to apply the law to the facts which is defensible in respect of the law and the facts. The Boards conclusions are reasonable. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Undue Pressure to Leave Employment

CUB 54186 Umpire Decision - She stated numerous reasons for leaving her employment, some of these included a personal pay raise that didn't happen, a negative job performance review and converting her office to a staff room without prior notice. The claimant stated that when the new employers took over they did evaluation reports of the employees. When her assessment was done it contained negative statements that the claimant felt attacked her credibility and professional standing. They redrafted it but the claimant was not advised of the revision and never received a copy. As a result of the previous mentioned actions the claimant had to seek medical help and had to take two months off work. The Umpire stated:

"I come to that conclusion because if they did not want her to quit her job, surely when they did the re-evaluation, they would have called her and told her that the evaluation had been changed and she should return to work. No such attempt was made. I conclude from that, that they were satisfied that she was no longer going to be in their employment."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Cathy Asaro
Date: 2002

CUB 62040 Umpire Decision - The claimant explained the voluntarily leave as his employer was pressuring him to leave. He stated that he had mentioned to his employer that he was planning on eventually pursuing a career as a firefighter. At the time that he had mentioned this he was working 40 hours per week at Radio Shack, his hours where then reduced to 29 hours a week and the store manager repeatedly asked when he would be leaving. He said that while his hours were being reduced, a new employee was hired and he had to train him. He also stated that when he was informed that his hours were going to be reduced even more, he felt that he could not live on these reduced earnings and decided to leave. He stated that he had never been warned about his performance at work and that he never mentioned to his employer about the way that he was being treated, for fear that his hours may be reduced again. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 68762 Umpire Decision - The claimant had left her employment after the employer had suggested that she leave and would indicate it was a shortage of work as her reason for separation. Under the circumstances the majority of the Board felt that she could have believed that the employer was pressuring her to leave. There had been an issue raised by the employee in regards to work breaks and labour standards while at the same time another cook had been hired who was getting hours she had had before. The Umpire supported the view of the majority that under the circumstances there was no reasonable alternative to leaving the job to look for other employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 75052 Umipre Decision - The employer was allegedly pressured the claimant to leave his employment by his employer ending his position and the employer did not offer the claimant another position. Leaving his employment was the claimant’s only option. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 77157Umipre Decision - The claimant had worked for the employer for 18 years. After the employer told the claimant that he was going to lose his job, he found a job at a mining company as a janitor. In January the mine was to be closed in June. Anticipating this, the claimant looked for employment elsewhere. He got a seasonal job that was to keep him employed until March, he would have a short break, then resume work in June. This employment ended much sooner than expected due to a fire. Because initially the claimant was certainly going to lose his job in June due to the mine closure, the claimant had attempted to seek alternate employment. The claimant had a justifiable reason to leave employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

Voluntary Quit - Workforce Reduction

CUB 55173 Umpire Decision -An agreement was reached between the employer and the employees where the employer created a pool of seasonal workers from the full time workers to meet additional labour needs between June 1 and November 1 of each year, keeping on the younger full time employees who would have been normally let go at the season's end. In this case the employer's retirement incentive program does not meet regulatory requirements. This is not true of those workers who have renounced their permanent status to join the seasonal pool. Counsel for the claimant argues that his client decided to keep his permanent status; this would have triggered the permanent layoff of another employee with less seniority, since the employer had decided to cut 30 positions. The decision of the Board is as follows:

"The claimant thus left his employment in the context of a workforce reduction scheme implemented by his employer designed to protect the jobs of other workers; this means that the claimant is entitled to Employment Insurance benefits because the incentive measure applied by the employer was intended to achieve a permanent reduction of 30 positions in the overall workforce."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

CUB 55778 Umpire Decision - The evidence shows that the claimant left voluntarily as part of a voluntary departure program, including separation pay, one of the objectives of which was to reduce the work force. The claimant's claim is upheld by the Board because his departure is covered by the conditions set out in sections 51(1) and 51(2) of the Regulations. The Commission felt that the claimant was not covered by these sections; they felt that the claimant created his own unemployment by deciding to retire because of the separation pay. The Umpire stated:

"In addition, an important factor in the application of the sections of the regulation in question was missing, e.g., we are not facing a work force reduction of which one of the consequences, confirmed by the employer, must be to protect another employee's position. According to the Commission, instead, we are looking at the case of a reduction in the number of employees by attrition."

The evidence clearly shows that the Board was right in their decision. The appeal is dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2002

Wages

CUB 41357 Umpire Decision - The claimant had formerly worked at Canadian Tire for 18 years with a wage rate of $9.50 an hour. She went to Home Hardware after they offered to match her pay at Canadian Tire, and however, the claimant was only paid at a rate of $7.10 an hour (minimum wage) due to a union agreement. The claimant also had to do very difficult work at Home Hardware which she did not at Canadian Tire i.e.: unloading packages weighing 30-40 pounds. The Umpire found that there was a substantial difference in $9.50 and $7.10 an hour and that carting heavy loads were conditions which were deleterious to the claimant's health. It was found that the claimant had the right to leave her job and not put up with these onerous working conditions at a minimum wage. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Elaine O'Connor
Date: 1998

CUB 42668 Umpire Decision - The claimant had been employed on a part time basis as a retail clerk while attending university. After the claimant graduated she was able to work on a full time basis while regular employees took their vacations through the summer and fall months. When the vacation period ended the employer could only offer the claimant part time work, which resulted in a significant income reduction (from $755-$1070 to $325-$215) which she was unable to survive on. The Umpire found that the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Vanessa Glasgow
Date: 1998

CUB 44134 Umpire Decision - The claimant submitted a complaint to the Commission (Provincial Labour Standards office) alleging that he had been paid less than the minimum wage for doing home deliveries for a restaurant. The appellant stated he had to leave his employment because of an employer practice which was illegal. His hourly wage of $5.73 was an illegal working condition which the employer refused to change. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Francis Bergeron
Date: 1999

CUB 51146 Umpire Decision - The claimant stated that he was hired to drive forklift and would work when the fish came in. The claimant was also told that he would receive a raise but never did, when he was denied the raise he quit. The claimant was very truthful in his account of what happened. From his account he found it difficult to work with this employer and work under the conditions that were placed before him. He was promised a raise that he never received. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Daniel Russell
Date: 2001

CUB 76898Umipre Decision - The claimant had come to Canada from Iran in the practice of veterinary medicine, he was working in an electronics store . His commission had been reduced by 50% resulting in a $600 bi weekly wage loss, leaving him unable to support his family. He had worked for Best Buy for 8 years while studying for his veterinary licence. The job was not earning him enough to cover basic costs and he was living on loans from the bank. The reduction in income was grounds for leaving employment. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Workforce Reduction - Permanent/Temporary2

CUB 56933 Umpire Decision/A-254-03 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The Commission appeals the decision that the claimant had shown just cause for voluntarily leaving his job. The company that the claimant worked for was laying off 400 employees. The company offered incentive packages for any employee that quit their job to save the jobs of junior employees. The Commission argued that the lay-offs were not permanent since the employer wanted to bring up the amount of employees after and only if they could get help from the government. Also, the Commission stated that there was a two year recall right to any laid-off employee by union regulations. Therefore the lay-off was temporary. The Board came to the conclusion that the reduction of the work-force was permanent despite the two-year recall clause and despite the employer's hope that help might come from the government. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003