AL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

AL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The appeal was allowed because the member found the claimant had just cause to leave: antagonism and specific threats from the supervisor (which the member preferred the claimant's detailed testimony about), the claimant attempted internal resolution with the owners and waited reasonable time, and the employer's conduct (including refusing the resignation notice) meant reasonable alternatives such as maintaining employment or lodging a formal external complaint were not available; therefore claimant was not disqualified from EI benefits.

Citation
2022 SST 164
Parties
Appellant (claimant): A. L.; Respondent (commission): Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claimant not disqualified from receiving benefits.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Leave/quit, Just Cause for Leaving, Antagonism With Supervisor, Reasonable Alternatives to Quitting, Workplace Harassment and Threats
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Labour and Employment Administrative Law Voluntary Leave/quit Just Cause for Leaving Antagonism With Supervisor Reasonable Alternatives to Quitting Workplace Harassment and Threats

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. L.

Appellant (claimant)

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent (commission)

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant voluntarily leave employment?
  2. 2 Did the claimant have just cause for leaving under s.29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act?
  3. 3 Whether the claimant had reasonable alternatives to quitting when he did?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the member found the claimant had just cause to leave: antagonism and specific threats from the supervisor (which the member preferred the claimant's detailed testimony about), the claimant attempted internal resolution with the owners and waited reasonable time, and the employer's conduct (including refusing the resignation notice) meant reasonable alternatives such as maintaining employment or lodging a formal external complaint were not available; therefore claimant was not disqualified from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claimant not disqualified from receiving benefits.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; claimant entitled to Employment Insurance benefits (not disqualified).