P. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

P. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

On the balance of probabilities the claimant requested and received authorized leaves from her employer and failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives (e.g. did not seek medical assessment for alleged burnout), and by requesting leave she limited her availability and job search; therefore she is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 63
Parties
Claimant: P. L.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Leave Without Just Cause, Disentitlement, Record of Employment, Misleading Advice by Commission Staff
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Availability for Work Leave Without Just Cause Disentitlement Record of Employment Misleading Advice by Commission Staff

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. L.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant voluntarily took leave without just cause under s.32 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether claimant was available for work under s.18 and whether she made reasonable and customary efforts under s.50(8) and Reg.9.001
  3. 3 Whether misinformation by Service Canada estops or excuses the statutory disentitlement

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant requested and received authorized leaves from her employer and failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives (e.g. did not seek medical assessment for alleged burnout), and by requesting leave she limited her availability and job search; therefore she is disentitled under s.32 for the specified periods and fails to prove availability under s.18, and reliance on alleged misinformation by Commission staff does not negate the statutory disentitlement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Disentitlement imposed under s.32 of the Employment Insurance Act for July 21, 2014 to September 2, 2014.