B. E. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

B. E. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Although the General Division erred in law by excluding a shift‑premium based pay reduction from consideration because it was tied to a shift change, the Appeal Division, after correcting that error and reviewing the complete record, found the evidence did not establish the Claimant would actually lose access to the late shift premium or suffer a significant modification of wages or duties at the time he left; the Claimant therefore had reasonable alternatives and no just cause to quit, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2019 SST 1397
Parties
Appellant: B. E.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision From General Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Voluntary Leaving, Just Cause, Significant Modification of Employment Terms, Shift Premium, Procedural Fairness, Grounds of Appeal, Remedy Under DESD Act
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Social Security Law Constructive Dismissal Voluntary Leaving Just Cause Significant Modification of Employment Terms Shift Premium +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. E.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision From General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division acted unfairly by relying on evidence not provided to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the General Division erred in law by treating a pay reduction tied to business restructuring as not a significant change
  3. 3 Whether the General Division erred in law by excluding shift premium loss as a pay reduction because it was a shift change

Ratio Decidendi

Although the General Division erred in law by excluding a shift‑premium based pay reduction from consideration because it was tied to a shift change, the Appeal Division, after correcting that error and reviewing the complete record, found the evidence did not establish the Claimant would actually lose access to the late shift premium or suffer a significant modification of wages or duties at the time he left; the Claimant therefore had reasonable alternatives and no just cause to quit, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • General Division decision confirmed as corrected on law regarding consideration of shift premium