[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

You are here

Canada v. Wall, 2002 FCA 283

Citations2002 FCA 283

Case tabs

Citations
2002 FCA 283