Appeal Dismissed: Claimant Failed to Prove Just Cause for Quitting Job

[TRANSLATION] Citation: SL  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  121 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 14, 2025 (GE-25-2181) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: February 10, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representative Decision date: February 20, 2026 File number: AD-25-730 On this page Decision Overview Issue Preliminary remarks Analysis Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant (Claimant) didn’t have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant worked for almost nine years as a cleaner for [COMPANY] in the greater Montréal area. He was on sick leave from January 25, 2025, to April 13, 2025. When he went back to work, the employer changed his workload by adding other tasks. After trying unsuccessfully to go back to his former tasks, he quit on April 25, 2025. He then applied for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. [ 3 ] The Claimant argued that the employer imposed significant changes in his work duties. He said that his new tasks were more physically demanding, and that no one could have performed them properly in the given time while meeting the required cleanliness standards. [ 4 ] The Respondent (Commission) looked at why the Claimant quit his job. It decided that he voluntarily left (or chose to quit) his job without just cause, so it wasn’t able to pay him benefits. The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division found that the Claimant didn’t have just cause because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving. This meant that he had to be disqualified from receiving EI  benefits. [ 6 ] The Appeal Division gave the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. [ 7 ] I am dismissing the Claimant’s appeal for the following reasons. Issue [ 8 ] Did the General Division make an error in how it interpreted section 29(c)(iv) of the Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act)? Preliminary remarks [ 9 ] It is well established that, in deciding this appeal, I have to consider only the evidence that was before the General Division. Footnote 1 So, I listened to the recording of the General Division hearing. Analysis Did the General Division make an error in how it interpreted section 29(c)(iv) of the EI  Act? [ 10 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division imposed too high a burden of proof on him, and that it didn’t consider all the circumstances. He says that the General Division decision is untenable because it found that he had to continue working a job that was actively harming his health—something it recognized in its judgment. It also found that a reasonable alternative would have been to accept his status changing. This would have meant switching from working full time to being on call, even though it would have involved much more precarious arrangements, and his employer and union weren’t cooperative. [ 11 ] The General Division found that the Claimant voluntarily left his job. He quit on April 25, 2025. [ 12 ] In March 2025, the Claimant had a double hernia repair. The recovery from this procedure was quite painful. Even though he was in pain, the surgeon cleared him to fully go back to work. [ 13 ] So, the Claimant did his best to continue working, even though he was in pain. But, as his workload increased, his pain also increased. He was worried that one or both of his hernias would reappear. He told his supervisor three days after going back to work. [ 14 ] The General Division found that the Claimant didn’t have to wait until his sutures came undone after surgery or until the hernias reappeared. The new tasks the employer added posed a risk to his health. [ 15 ] The General Division found that the Claimant had proven that one of the circumstances set out in the law existed. He proved that his working conditions were a danger to his health. [ 16 ] The General Division later found that a reasonable alternative would have been for the Claimant to agree to be put on an on-call list—with no guaranteed hours. He could also have waited to be transferred to another position. [ 17 ] Respectfully, the General Division made an error when it found that the offer to be put on the on-call list was a reasonable alternative in the circumstances. [ 18 ] The Claimant worked for his employer for almost nine years. [ 19 ] The employer gave the Claimant more tasks as soon as he went back to work, right after having had a double hernia repair. It showed no sensitivity when he asked to go back to his former tasks. It even suggested that it blamed him for having been absent because he was sick. Footnote 2 Also, the union didn’t help, even though it was possible to file a complaint for work overload. Footnote 3 [ 20 ] The Claimant could reasonably interpret the ultimatum given to him three days after he got back from sick leave as a form of reprisal. The ultimatum was to either accept taking on more tasks or be put on the on-call list with no guaranteed hours—after almost nine years of service. It was in no way a reasonable alternative in the circumstances. [ 21 ] It has to be reiterated that a claimant has the burden of proving that they had no reasonable alternative to leaving their job, considering all the circumstances—not that their only option was to quit. [ 22 ] I am also of the view that the General Division made an error when it found that the following was a reasonable alternative: the Claimant continuing to work and waiting to see whether he would be able to change positions. This was after it had found that the new tasks the employer imposed posed a risk to the Claimant’s health, and that the union didn’t support him in his efforts. [ 23 ] Given the errors that the General Division made, I am justified in intervening. Remedy There are two ways to fix the General Division’s errors [ 24 ] When the General Division makes an error, the Appeal Division can fix it in two ways: (1) It can send the matter back to the General Division for a new hearing; or (2) it can give the decision that the General Division should have given. The record is complete and I can give the decision that the General Division should have given [ 25 ] Considering that the parties had the opportunity to present their case before the General Division, I will give the decision that the General Division should have given. Footnote 4 [ 26 ] I have to decide whether the Claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving his job under the EI  Act. This has to be decided as of the moment he left . [ 27 ] A claimant has just cause to voluntarily leave if they had no reasonable alternative to quitting their job when they did. They have to consider all the circumstances. [ 28 ] The evidence shows that the Claimant went back to work on April 14, 2025. The employer gave him more tasks as soon as he went back to work, right after having had a double hernia repair. He was worried that one or both of his hernias would reappear. [ 29 ] After trying the new tasks, he told his employer as early as April 16, 2025, that he wanted to go back to his former workload. The employer refused his accommodation request the same day. He didn’t get any support from his union. He decided to leave his job on April 25, 2025. [ 30 ] I find that the evidence shows that the new tasks the employer added posed a risk to the Claimant’s health. But, even if he finds himself in one of the circumstances set out in section 29(c) of the EI  Act, the main issue stays the same: Did the Claimant have any reasonable alternatives to leaving his job? [ 31 ] Case law has established that when a claimant relies on health reasons to leave their job, they also have to prove, in most cases, that they tried finding another job before leaving the one they had. Footnote 5 [ 32 ] When the Commission interviewed the Claimant on May 2, 2025, he said that he hadn’t looked for a new job before leaving the one he had. He looked for work after leaving his job. Footnote 6 [ 33 ] In a second interview held on May 21, 2025, the Claimant said that after leaving, he went to the employment office. Footnote 7 [ 34 ] In a third interview held on July 24, 2025, the Claimant said that he went to an [NAME] after leaving his job. Footnote 8 [ 35 ] I understand that the Claimant no longer wanted to be affected after seeing that his employer wasn’t being flexible, and that his union wasn’t supporting him. He also didn’t want to keep putting his health at risk by taking on the additional tasks his employer was assigning him. So, he quit on April 25, 2025. [ 36 ] But a reasonable alternative would have been for the Claimant to look for another job as soon as he started having pain after his tasks were changed—or, at the very least, after the employer refused to accommodate him on April 16, 2025. He didn’t do so. This is especially true given that he quit on April 25, 2025. [ 37 ] Before the General Division, the Claimant confirmed the many statements he had made about contacting the employment office [translation] “right after” he quit. Footnote 9 He argued that he didn’t have time to look for a job before quitting, given that his work schedule was from 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. He needed time to sleep and prepare his lunch before starting another day of work. Footnote 10 [ 38 ] With all due respect to the Claimant, I can’t accept his position. [ 39 ] Given that he worked in the evening, and that his employer wasn’t flexible, it was reasonable for the Claimant to make some efforts for at least part of the day to look for a job—before making a unilateral decision to leave. He could have gone to an [NAME] before leaving his job. Before quitting, he could have done the following: assess job opportunities in his field, sign up for job-search tools, and get help writing his résumé. [ 40 ] I am of the view that the Claimant didn’t show that he had tried to find another job before leaving the one he had. [ 41 ] I know that my decision seems harsh, given that the Claimant made other efforts. But case law imposes on a claimant the obligation to make some efforts to find another job before making a unilateral decision to quit—even if they are leaving for health reasons. I see no circumstances in this case that would have relieved the Claimant of this obligation. [ 42 ] Considering all the circumstances, I find that the Claimant didn’t have just cause for leaving his job under the EI  Act. Conclusion [ 43 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant didn’t have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job under the law. Footnotes Footnote 1 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:22:13. See GD7-9, where there is a text message that was sent later, showing that the employer wasn’t happy with the Claimant asking for accommodation. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 23.03 of the Collective Agreement 2017-2024 at GD8-2. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 As per section 59(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See, for example, CUB 18965, CUB 38804, CUB 74625, and CUB 80905. See also Canada (Attorney General)  v  White , 2011  FCA  190. This decision addresses the obligation imposed on a claimant to look for work before leaving a job. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD3-13. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD3-19. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-29. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing from 0:48:38 to 0:48:43. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing from 0:48:45 to 0:49:05. Return to footnote 10 referrer