Vehof Farms Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and C. B.
The General Division decision was set aside because it failed to state the correct test for just cause; that omission is an error of law on the correctness standard and requires remand to the General Division for reconsideration.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 SSTAD 1153
- Parties
- Appellant: Vehof Farms Inc.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Claimant: C. B.
- Court
- Social Security Tribunal of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 September 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / Appeal Division Decision; Remitted to General Division for Reconsideration
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; remitted to the General Division for reconsideration.
- Legal Topics
- Just Cause for Leaving Employment, Standard of Review Correctness, Remand for Reconsideration, Notice of Hearing
- 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
Vehof Farms Inc.
Appellant
Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Respondent
C. B.
Claimant
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / Appeal Division Decision; Remitted to General Division for Reconsideration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the General Division/board applied the correct legal test for 'just cause' to leave employment
- 2 Whether failure to state the correct test is an error of law reviewable on the correctness standard
- 3 Whether the Tribunal properly notified parties and could decide on the basis of written submissions after non‑attendance
Ratio Decidendi
The General Division decision was set aside because it failed to state the correct test for just cause; that omission is an error of law on the correctness standard and requires remand to the General Division for reconsideration.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; remitted to the General Division for reconsideration.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Case returned to the General Division for reconsideration.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Vehof Farms Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and C. B. Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2015-09-29 Neutral citation 2015 SSTAD 1153 Reference number AD‑13‑844 Member Mark Borer Division Appeal Division Decision Appeal allowed Related decisions SST - Vehof Farms Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2015 SSTAD 118 - 2015-02-03 - Appeal Division Decision Content On this page Decision Introduction Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] The appeal is allowed. The case will be returned to the General Division for reconsideration. Introduction [2] On April 18, 2013, a panel of the board of referees determined that the appeal of the Appellant from the previous determination of the Commission should be dismissed. In due course, the Appellant appealed to the Appeal Division and leave was granted. [3] On July 16, 2015, a teleconference hearing was held but none of the parties attended. Evidence in the file indicated that the Appellant and the Commission had received notice, but that the Respondent Claimant’s notice was “refused by recipient”. I was therefore satisfied that the Tribunal had taken the proper steps to notify the parties. Analysis [4] As none of the parties attended the hearing, I was forced to render a decision on the basis of the written submissions. [5] The Appellant submits that the General Division member erred by finding that the Claimant had shown just cause to leave his employment. [6] The Commission concedes that the Board did not state that the Claimant must show that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his employment, given all of the circumstances. Notwithstanding this, however, the Commission submits that the application of the correct test is implicit in the Board’s reasons. They ask that the appeal be dismissed. [7] I cannot agree. The Board failed to state the correct test, and it is therefore not at all clear to me that they applied that test in coming to their brief conclusions. This is an error of law, reviewable on the correctness standard. As such, this decision cannot stand. Conclusion [8] The appeal is allowed. The case will be returned to the General Division for reconsideration.