Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] D. O. is the Claimant in this case. He worked as a purchasing coordinator. He quit his job and applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. He says that there was a long commute between work and home, as well as a toxic environment at work.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that he was not allowed to get EI benefits because he quit his job without just cause.^{Footnote 1} There were reasonable alternatives.

[4] The General Division agreed with the Commission.^{Footnote 2} It considered the Claimant’s reasons for leaving his job, but decided he didn’t have just cause. It said there were other reasonable alternatives.

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 3} He says that the General Division made an error of law and didn’t follow procedural fairness.^{Footnote 4} He argues that he had just cause to leave his job due to harassment, toxic and discriminatory working conditions.

[6] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 5}

Issues

[7] I have focused on the following questions:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law when it decided that the Claimant didn’t have just cause to leave his job?
2. b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness?
3. c) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact?

Analysis

[8] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 6}

[9] I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 7} This means that there must be some arguable ground that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 8}

[10] I can only consider certain types of errors. I have to focus on whether the General Division could have made one or more of the relevant errors (this is called the “grounds of appeal”).^{Footnote 9}

• proceeded in a way that was unfair
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers
• made an error in law
• based its decision on an important error of fact

[11] For the Claimant’s appeal to proceed to the next step, I have to find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one of the grounds of appeal.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law

[12] An error of law can happen when the General Division does not apply the correct law, or uses the correct law but misunderstands what it means or how to apply it.^{Footnote 10}

[13] In the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, he doesn’t point to a specific error of law that the General Division made. His arguments focus on the reasons he left his job and restates that he had just cause. He also says that each situation is unique, so the availability and feasibility of alternative options varies. Lastly, he says that he made sincere efforts to resolve workplace conflicts before making any drastic decisions.

[14] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause.^{Footnote 11}

[15] The law says that just cause for voluntarily leaving a job exists if a person had no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances.^{Footnote 12}

[16] The General Division said that the Claimant agreed he voluntarily left his job on October 7, 2021.^{Footnote 13}

[17] The General Division then looked at the reasons the Claimant said he left his job. It said that he left his job because of the long commute and his perception of a toxic work environment.^{Footnote 14}

[18] However, the General Division was not persuaded that the Claimant actually quit his job because of a toxic work environment.^{Footnote 15} It decided that the evidence did not support the existence of a toxic work environment.^{Footnote 16}

[19] The General Division found that he only raised the issue of a toxic work environment after he was already refused EI benefits. In its decision, it explained why it preferred some of the earlier evidence provided by the Claimant over statements that came later.^{Footnote 17} It also relied on a Federal Court of Appeal (Court) case to support its position of favouring the earlier evidence.^{Footnote 18}

[20] Finally, the General Division decided that the Claimant did not have just cause to leave his job based on the reasons he provided.^{Footnote 19} It said there were two reasonable alternatives, including attempting to resolve the workplace conflict and staying in his job until he could secure a new job.^{Footnote 20}

[21] It is not arguable that the General Division made an error of law for the following reasons.

[22] First, the General Division stated and applied the law correctly when it decided that the Claimant did not have just cause to leave his job.^{Footnote 21} It considered his reasons for leaving his job, but determined that he didn’t have just cause as there were reasonable two reasonable alternatives.

[23] The General Division relied on relevant case law in its decision.^{Footnote 22} The Court says that there is an obligation on employees to try to resolve workplace conflicts with an employer, or to demonstrate efforts to seek alternative employment before taking a unilateral decision to quit a job.^{Footnote 23}

[24] Second, the Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division simply restate the reasons he had just cause and his disagreement with the outcome. However, an appeal to the Appeal Division is not a new hearing. I cannot reweigh the evidence in order to come to a different conclusion that is more favourable for the Claimant.^{Footnote 24}

[25] Third, even though the Claimant argues that he had a good reason to leave his job, the General Division correctly determined that having a “good reason or good cause” did not amount to just cause. The Court has already said that having a good reason to leave a job does not amount to just cause according to the EI Act.^{Footnote 25}

[26] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law when it decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause.^{Footnote 26} There is no reasonable chance of success on this ground.

There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness

[27] If the General Division failed to follow a fair process, then I can intervene.^{Footnote 27} For example, if the decision maker was biased or did something that might have compromised the Claimant’s ability to know or respond to the case against him. 

[28] The Claimant doesn’t explain how the General Division breached procedural fairness or failed to follow a fair process in his application to the Appeal Division. Even so, I reviewed the record, the General Division decision and listened to the audio recording of the hearing to see if there were procedural fairness errors.

[29] The hearing recording shows that the General Division explained the legal test for voluntary leave cases to the Claimant. It asked him how he wanted the hearing to proceed. It asked him whether he wanted to present his case first or be asked questions. The General Division asked him relevant questions and clarifying questions about the evidence throughout the hearing.

[30] I did not find any errors made by the General Division on this ground.

[31] So, there is no arguable case that the General Division was procedurally unfair because the Claimant was given a full and fair opportunity to provide his evidence and make his arguments.^{Footnote 28} There is no reasonable chance of success on this ground.

There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact

[32] An error of fact happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”.^{Footnote 29}

[33] This means that I can intervene if the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case.

[34] However, not all errors of fact will allow me to intervene. An error of fact needs to be important enough that the General Division relied on it to make a finding that impacted the outcome of the decision.

[35] This involves considering some of the following questions:^{Footnote 30}

• Does the evidence squarely contradict one of the General Division’s key findings?
• Is there no evidence that could rationally support one of the General Division’s key findings?
• Did the General Division overlook critical evidence that contradicts one of its key findings?

[36] Some of the Claimant’s arguments in his application to the Appeal Division say that the General Division made some errors with the specific facts of this case. Because of that, I have considered whether the General Division could have made an important error of fact.^{Footnote 31}

[37] The Claimant points to paragraph 35 of the General Division decision for two reasons.^{Footnote 32} He says that it contradicts what he told the General Division at the hearing. He also says that the General Division ignored crucial information.

[38] More specifically, the Claimant argues that he told the General Division that he worked at the same location but for a different employer over a decade ago. At that time, he lived close to the workplace and it only took him 5-10 minutes to commute. As well, his daily commute time was a gruelling 2.5 hours each way, which the General Division ignored.

[39] I have reproduced paragraph 35 of the General Division decision and it says:

With respect to quitting because the commute was too much for the Appellant, that does not amount to just cause. He testified that it was not rational to leave a good job. But he couldn’t stay with the commuting time involved. He was 51 and can’t do now what he could do at age 21. That may be a good cause for quitting for the Appellant. But it is not just cause for EI purposes. Just cause requires that there is no reasonable alternative in all the circumstances to quitting when the person quits. The Appellant had worked for this employer in the past. He had the same commuting distance as in the past. He knew in advance what the commute would require. At the time he quit, he had worked for the employer for about two and one-half months. The failure to find a ride to work with a co-worker by itself was not just cause. Other options needed to be explored to justify a conclusion that there was no reasonable alternative to quitting when he did.

[40] It is not arguable that the General Division made an important error of fact for the following reasons.

[41] First, the General Division was aware of the Claimant’s daily commute and did not ignore this fact. The decision reflects the specific details about when the Claimant left home in the morning and when he returned at night.^{Footnote 33}

[42] Having a long daily commute doesn’t automatically mean that he had just cause to leave his job. The Claimant still had the burden proving that there was no reasonable alternative to leaving job when he did. In this case, the General Division said that there were two reasonable alternatives available to him, despite his daily commute.

[43] Second, the General Division was aware that the Claimant had worked at the same location in the past. The Claimant told the General Division that he previously worked at the same location many years ago and his commute was around 6 minutes because he lived nearby.^{Footnote 34}

[44] In my view, it is not arguable that the General Division made an important error of fact when it wrote “he had the same commuting distance as in the past” in paragraph 35 of its decision.

[45] I listened to the hearing recording. The General Division asked him specifically if the commuting time changed from when he started his job July 2021 to October 2021.^{Footnote 35} The Claimant confirmed that the commuting time did not change from when he first started his job in July 2021. This followed by the General Division asking him why he needed to quit if the commute hadn’t changed from when he started.

[46] The General Division didn’t misunderstand the facts or ignore crucial information. It knew that the Claimant had to commute to work and that it took over two hours. It also knew that he previously had a short commute when he worked at the same location many years ago. Given that, the General Division properly identified in its decision that he had the same commuting distance in the “past” – which I understand is the same commute to work from when he started his job. In other words, the Claimant’s commute didn’t change when he started the job in July 2021 and when he quit in October 2021.

[47] It is not arguable that the General Division made an important error of fact.^{Footnote 36} The General Division’s key findings are consistent with the evidence in the file. I am satisfied that the General Division did not ignore or misconstrue any of the evidence before it. There is no reasonable chance of success on this ground.

Conclusion

[48] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed.