Date: 20080407
Docket: A-465-07
CORAM: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
NADON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
CHRISTINE BEAULIEU
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered from the bench at
Montréal, Quebec, on April 7, 2008.)
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1]
In this
case, the question is whether the Umpire and the Board of Referees could
conclude that, given the circumstances, the respondent had just cause to
voluntarily leave her student job at Alimentation de la Mitis in order to carry
out an internship required for her to complete a secretarial diploma.
[2]
The
applicant argues that in confirming the decision of the Board of Referees, the
Umpire first erred in law by omitting to rule on a question that had been
submitted to him, that is, the Board of Referees’ excess of jurisdiction. In
fact, the Board of Referees ruled on the respondent’s eligibility for benefits
at the end of her internship even though no benefit period had been established
at that point and this question had not been submitted to it.
[3]
The
applicant also argues that the Umpire erred in fact and in law in his
application of the notion of “without just cause” for voluntarily leaving an
employment within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Employment
Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the Act).
[4]
The
respondent worked part time for Alimentation de la Mitis from April 24,
2005, to January 29, 2006, while she was going to school. As part of her
course, she had to carry out an internship at the Université du Québec à
Rimouski from February 2 to 23, 2006, in order to obtain her diploma.
[5]
The
respondent asked her employer to change her hours of work to allow her to do
the internship, but the employer refused because she was asking to take time
off during busy periods.
[6]
The
respondent left her job to carry out the internship. Afterwards, she was unable
to find a job in the secretarial field. She filed a claim for employment
insurance benefits on April 7, 2006. A benefit period was established for
her effective March 26, 2006. The respondent finally found a job at a
farmer’s market in Notre-Dame-des-Prairies starting May 29, 2006.
[7]
On May 16,
2006, the Commission informed the respondent that she was not eligible for
regular employment insurance benefits effective March 26, 2006, because
she had voluntarily left her employment on January 29, 2006, “without just
cause”. The Commission added that leaving
her employment had not been the only reasonable alternative in her case.
[8]
The Board
of Referees allowed the respondent’s appeal because she had been required to
carry out the internship in order to obtain her diploma, her job was a student
job, and she had tried to fit her hours of work around the compulsory
internship by negotiating with her employer, but the latter had been inflexible
and had left her no other choice but to leave her employment. The Board of
Referees declared the claimant eligible for benefits once she had completed her
internship.
[9]
The Umpire
dismissed the Commission’s appeal on the grounds that the matter was a question
of fact and that he was not authorized to intervene (CUB 68840).
[10]
We would
allow the application for judicial review.
[11]
The
respondent did not appeal the date of her eligibility for benefits, that is,
March 26, 2006, before the Board of Referees. The only question before the
Board of Referees was the respondent’s eligibility for benefits. The Board of
Referees and, consequently, the Umpire did not have jurisdiction to change the
date determined by the Commission.
[12]
The Umpire
and the Board of Referees also erred in fact and in law in their interpretation
and application of the notion of “without just cause” for voluntarily leaving
an employment within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Act, which
state:
|
29. For the purposes of sections 30 to 33,
(a) “employment” refers to any employment of the claimant
within their qualifying period or their benefit period;
…
(c) just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking
leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative
to leaving or taking leave, having regard to all the circumstances,
including any of the following:
…
|
29. Pour l’application des articles 30 à 33
:
a) « emploi » s’entend de tout emploi exercé
par le prestataire au cours de sa période de référence ou de sa période
de prestations;
…
c) le prestataire est fondé à quitter volontairement son
emploi ou à prendre congé si, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances,
notamment de celles qui sont énumérées ci-après, son départ ou son congé
constitue la seule solution raisonnable dans son cas :
…
|
|
30. (1) A claimant is disqualified from
receiving any benefits if the claimant lost any employment because of
their misconduct or voluntarily left any employment without just cause,
unless
…
[Emphasis added.]
|
30. (1)
Le prestataire est exclu du bénéfice des prestations s’il perd un
emploi en raison de son inconduite ou s’il quitte volontairement un emploi sans
justification, à moins, selon le cas :
…
[Je souligne.]
|
[13]
One need
only recall the jurisprudence of this Court applicable to this case. In Canada
(Attorney General) v. Martel, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1458 (F.C.A.) (QL),
A-1691-92, a case which is factually similar to the one at hand, I wrote for
the Court (para. 12):
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.
[14]
Subsequent
jurisprudence has been consistent with this decision (Canada (Attorney
General) v. Traynor, [1995] F.C.J. No. 836 (F.C.A.) (QL); Canada
(Attorney General) v. Barnett, [1996] F.C.J. No. 1289 (F.C.A.) (QL); Canada
(Attorney General) v. Bois, 2001 FCA 175, [2001] F.C.J. No. 878 (F.C.A.)
(QL); Canada v. Wall, 2002 F.C.A. 283, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1024 (F.C.A.)
(QL); Canada (Attorney General) v. Shaw, 2002 FCA 325; Canada
(Attorney General) v. Lessard, 2002 FCA 469, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1655
(F.C.A.) (QL); Canada (Attorney General) v. Connell, 2003 FCA 144,
[2003] F.C.J. No. 1147 (F.C.A.) (QL); Canada (Attorney General) v. Bédard,
2004 FCA 21, [2004] F.C.J. No. 270 (F.C.A.) (QL); Canada (Attorney General)
v. Caron, 2007 FCA 204, [2007] F.C.J. No. 754 (F.C.A.) (QL)).
[15]
The
Umpire erred in upholding the decision of the Board of Referees.
[16]
This
application for judicial review will be allowed, the Umpire's decision will be
set aside, and the matter will be referred back to the Chief Umpire or his
delegate for redetermination, taking into consideration that the respondent
must be disqualified from employment insurance benefits because she voluntarily
left her employment “without just cause”.
[17]
No costs
shall be payable given that there was no challenge by the respondent.
“Alice
Desjardins”
Certified true translation
Johanna Kratz
Email this Content