Canada v. Wall
As a matter of law, voluntarily leaving employment to undertake education does not constitute "just cause" for unemployment insurance benefits; therefore the Umpire's contrary decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination on the basis that there was no just cause for leaving employment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 283
- Parties
- Applicant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Chantelle Wall
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed; Umpire's decision set aside; matter remitted to the Chief Umpire (or his designate) to be redetermined on the basis that there was no "just cause" for leaving employment.
- Legal Topics
- Just Cause for Leaving Employment, Eligibility for Unemployment Benefits, Standard of Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Applicant
Chantelle Wall
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leaving employment to pursue education constitutes "just cause" for unemployment insurance benefits
- 2 Whether the issue is a question of law or fact deserving deference
- 3 Whether the Umpire's decision should be set aside and remitted
Ratio Decidendi
As a matter of law, voluntarily leaving employment to undertake education does not constitute "just cause" for unemployment insurance benefits; therefore the Umpire's contrary decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination on the basis that there was no just cause for leaving employment.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; Umpire's decision set aside; matter remitted to the Chief Umpire (or his designate) to be redetermined on the basis that there was no "just cause" for leaving employment.
Orders
- Umpire's decision set aside
- Matter remitted to the Chief Umpire (or his designate) for redetermination on the basis that there was no "just cause" for leaving employment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada v. Wall Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-06-27 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 283 File numbers A-54-01 Decision Content Date: 20020627 Docket: A-54-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 283 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Applicant and CHANTELLE WALL Respondent Heard at St. John's Newfoundland, on June 27, 2002. Judgment delivered from the bench at St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 27, 2002. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LINDEN J.A. Date: 20020627 Docket: A-54-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 283 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Applicant and CHANTELLE WALL Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LINDEN J.A. [1] In our view, this application must succeed. It is well-established in the jurisprudence of this Court that leaving a job for the purpose of education does not qualify as "just cause" for leaving. Canada v. Martel (1994), 175 N.R. 275; Canada v. Stevens (1996), 195 N.R. 392; Canada v. West, [1996] F.C.J. No. 209. Here the respondent did just that and hence, as a matter of law, cannot qualify for benefits. [2] As Desjardins J.A. explained in Martel: An employee who voluntarily leaves his employment to take a training course which is not authorized by the Commission certainly has an excellent reason for doing so in personal terms; but we feel it is contrary to the very principles underlying the unemployment insurance system for that employee to be able to impose the economic burden of his decision on contributors to the fund. [3] Nor is the issue in this case a matter of fact deserving of deference; the facts are clear and undisputed. The only issue is the meaning of just cause, and its application to the facts of this case. [4] The application will be allowed, the Umpire's decision will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the Chief Umpire (or his designate) to be redetermined on the basis that there was no "just cause" for leaving employment. "A.M. Linden" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-54-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. CHANTELLE WALL PLACE OF HEARING: ST. JOHN'S DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 27, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY SEXTON J.A. DATED: JUNE 27, 2002 APPEARANCES: MELISSA CAMERON FOR THE APPLICANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MORRIS ROSENBERG, FOR THE APPLICANT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA