Appeal Dismissed: Just Cause for Leaving Job Under Employment Insurance

[TRANSLATION] Citation: GT  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  144 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 19, 2025 (GE-25-2991) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 24, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: March 2, 2026 File number: AD-25-786 On this page Decision Overview Issue Preliminary remarks Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant (Claimant) didn’t have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant applied for regular benefits. In his claim, he said that he had been employed until April 19, 2025, and that his employment ended after he voluntarily left. He said that he was hired as a production planner, but the employer asked him to perform clerk work. [ 3 ] The Commission looked at the Claimant’s reasons for leaving and decided that he voluntarily left his job without just cause. As a result, he was disentitled from receiving regular benefits. [ 4 ] On reconsideration, the Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job. He didn’t experience a significant change in his duties. Even if he had, there was a reasonable alternative to leaving his job. He could have talked about his working conditions with his employer before leaving. He didn’t do that. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. [ 6 ] The Appeal Division gave the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. [ 7 ] The Claimant argues that most of the duties his employer gave didn’t match the duties of a production planner. Instead, he was asked to combine two jobs—clerk and planner. He argues that he had just cause for voluntarily leaving in the circumstances. [ 8 ] For the following reasons, I am dismissing the Claimant’s appeal. Issue [ 9 ] Did the General Division make an error in its interpretation of section 29(c)(ix) of the Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act)? Preliminary remarks [ 10 ] 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 its interpretation of section 29(c)(ix) of the EI  Act? [ 11 ] The Claimant argues that most of the duties his employer gave didn’t match the duties of a production planner. Instead, he was asked to combine two jobs—clerk and planner—for budget reasons. [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that the employer imposed a significant change in his duties because he had been hired as a production planner. He also argues that the employer planned to require him to work excessive overtime. He had just cause for voluntarily leaving his job in the circumstances. [ 13 ] The General Division found that the Claimant didn’t experience a significant change in his duties. Even if he had, there was a reasonable alternative to leaving his job. He could have talked about his working conditions with his employer before leaving. He didn’t do that. [ 14 ] Case law has established that a claimant who is hired for one position—yet in reality, has to perform another—might, in some circumstances, have just cause for voluntarily leaving their job. Footnote 2 [ 15 ] It is true that the duties the Claimant performed didn’t fully match the duties of a production planner. But he spoke with the employer in the first few days of working about his mixed duties—clerk and planner. The employer told him that these were the duties to be performed for that position. The Claimant decided to keep working for the employer because he was going through a difficult financial situation. He stayed in the position for two months. [ 16 ] I am of the view that someone who accepts an employer’s working conditions can’t later rely on those same conditions to justify leaving. Footnote 3 [ 17 ] In other words, someone who keeps working after initially accepting duties that didn’t meet their expectations can’t later say that they left their job because of a significant change in their duties. [ 18 ] The Claimant also argued that the employer planned to impose overtime work on him. It expected him to be available during the week for any production problems happening outside of regular working hours. But the evidence shows that this situation didn’t exist when the Claimant left. So, there wasn’t excessive overtime work under section 29(c)(viii) of the EI  Act. [ 19 ] I have to point out that even if the Claimant was in one of the circumstances set out in section 29(c) of the EI  Act, the main issue is still the same: Did the Claimant have any reasonable alternatives to leaving his job? [ 20 ] Before the General Division, the Claimant argued that he didn’t see how the employer would have agreed to end the mixed duties that were put in place after budget cuts. He also argued that he was justified in not raising the issue with his employer because management and [NAME] would have supported each other. In his view, they got along a little too well. [ 21 ] As the General Division noted, it was up to the Claimant to talk about his working conditions with his employer and to explore whether the nature or conditions of his job could be changed to deal with his concerns before leaving his job. It wasn’t up to him to speak for the employer. Footnote 4 [ 22 ] This is even more true because, after the Claimant resigned and before he left, the employer showed that it was open to suggestions. It asked him how it could keep employees in the position of production planner. The employer accepted the Claimant’s suggestion to stop the mixed duties and said that it would hire an administrative employee. Footnote 5 [ 23 ] Even if the Claimant’s reasons for resigning seemed reasonable to him and were a good personal choice, they don’t meet the legal test for showing that he had just cause to leave his job under section 29(c) of the EI  Act. Conclusion [ 24 ] 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 See DS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2019  SST  400. In that case, the Claimant left the job after two days of training because the duties he was expected to perform weren’t engineering work, but rather technician work. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , A-584-95. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  320. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the recording of the General Division hearing from 24:16 to 25:04. Return to footnote 5 referrer