Canada (Attorney General) v. Connell

Canada (Attorney General) v. Connell Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-03-18 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 144 File numbers A-46-02 Decision Content Date: 20030318 Docket: A-46-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 144 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and JONATHAN CONNELL Respondent Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on March 18, 2003. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on March 18, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.A. Date: 20030318 Docket: A-46-02 Neutral citation:2003 FCA 144 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and JONATHAN CONNELL Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, NB, on March 18, 2003) Rothstein J.A. [1] The issue in this application for judicial review is whether the Umpire erred in finding that the respondent had just cause in leaving his employment. The evidence is that the respondent left his employment to complete a training program. [2] The jurisprudence of this Court has been consistent. Leaving employment to further one's education, while good cause, is not just cause as required by sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c.23. The respondent says he had invested $7,500 in a training program and that this amount was at risk if he failed the course. While the respondent urges that having funds at risk in respect of a training program should be a persuasive consideration to satisfy the just cause requirement, he has not submitted any authority to support this position. On the other hand, the applicant says there are numerous circumstances where individuals have invested in training programs and the risk of losing that investment has never been found to constitute just cause for leaving employment. [3] The result here is harsh. Nonetheless, it is the duty of this Court to apply the law and the settled jurisprudence. See for example Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Bois [2001] F.C.J. No. 878, 2001 FCA 175 and authorities referred to therein. We must conclude that the respondent did not have just cause for leaving his employment. [4] The Umpire also found that the majority of the Board did not comply with subsection 114(3) of the Employment Insurance Act in respect of providing adequate reasons for its decision. However the majority of the Board did recount the respondent's evidence that he left his employment to keep up with his studies. Just cause was the issue before the Board and the facts the majority recounted were the basis of its decision that while the respondent did have good cause, he did not have just cause for leaving his employment. We can find no deficiency in respect of the Board's decision. [5] Considering all the circumstances of this case, it is with much regret that we will allow the application for judicial review, set aside the decision of the Umpire and refer the matter back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for determination on the basis that the respondent did not have just cause for leaving his employment. "M. Rothstein" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-46-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: The Attorney General of Canada -and- Jonathan Connell PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: March 18, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : Rothstein J.A. DATED: March 18, 2003 APPEARANCES: Ms. Lori Rasmussen FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Lucie N. Mathurin-Ring FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE APPELLANT Gorman Nason Saint John, New Brunswick FOR THE RESPONDENT