Claimant Allowed to Receive Benefits After Leaving Job for Training

Citation: DD  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  331 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 13, 2026 (GE-25-3578) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: May 6, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 6, 2026 File number: AD-26-176 On this page Decision Overview The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am allowing the appeal. [ 2 ] The General Division made an important error of fact. I have corrected that error and made the decision the General Division should have made. [ 3 ] I find that the Claimant had just cause for leaving her employment, and that she is not disqualified from receiving benefits. Overview [ 4 ] The Claimant was injured at work on January 17, 2025. She started a training program to upgrade her work-related skills on February 6, 2025. The employer offered to set up a return-to-work program to accommodate her injury, but the Claimant could not then accept shifts because of her school. The employer would not agree to a leave of absence for her to finish her program. It asked her to resign on February 14, 2025. [ 5 ] The Claimant applied for sickness benefits on April 21, 2025. She applied for regular benefits in June 2025, after her sickness benefits ended. [ 6 ] The Commission would not pay her regular benefits because it said she had voluntarily left her job without just cause. It would not change its decision when the Claimant asked it to reconsider. [ 7 ] The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal. The Claimant next appealed to the Appeal Division. [ 8 ] I am allowing the appeal. The General Division made an error of fact. I have made the decision the General Division should have made and corrected that error. I find that the Claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her job. The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal [ 9 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Commission conceded that the General Division made an error of fact. It conceded that the General Division misunderstood or ignored evidence that the Claimant was referred to her training program by [NAME], a designated authority. It asked that the Appeal Division substitute its decision by finding that the Claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving. This means that the Claimant should not have been disqualified from receiving regular benefits. [ 10 ] The Claimant endorsed the Commission’s submissions and agreed that I should dispose of the appeal as recommended by the Commission. I accept the parties’ agreement [ 11 ] The Claimant and the Commission are agreed that it was not reasonable to expect her to quit her training and agreed that she had just cause for leaving. I accept their agreement. [ 12 ] I may only intervene where I find that the General Division makes an important error of fact. Footnote 1 This is where the General Division bases its decision on a finding of fact that ignores or misunderstands evidence or does not follow rationally from the evidence. [ 13 ] The General Division’s decision was based on its finding that the Claimant could have found other work instead of staying in her training, as a reasonable alternative to quitting. [ 14 ] I agree with the parties that the General Division misunderstood or failed to consider evidence. The General Division said that it “[found] no evidence” that the Claimant was referred to her training. This finding was relevant to its conclusion that the Claimant could have quit her training as a reasonable alternative. [ 15 ] However, there was evidence suggesting the Claimant had been referred by a designated authority. The Claimant sent the General Division a series of emails between herself and [NAME], including the following: On December 24, 2024, [NAME] writes, “I just sent the agreement through DocuSign. Please sign it electronically at your earliest convenience and hit ‘Finish’ once done.” Footnote 2 On January 24, 2025, [NAME] writes: “We are still waiting for the institution to send the invoice to us. The tuition has not been paid yet. We contacted them but haven’t heard anything back. Regarding the financial supports, [T.] and I will get back to you at the beginning of next week. We will let you know as soon as it is ready for pick-up.” Footnote 3 On January 28, 2025, [NAME] writes an email about training supports [NAME] has set up for the Claimant under the agreement. Footnote 4 Finally, on January 29, 2025, [NAME] writes: “For your information, I confirm that the [NAME] has issued the invoice for the tuition and that our finance department is processing it.” Footnote 5 [ 16 ] There were also photographs of training attendance and progress records that the Claimant completed on [NAME] forms, including the progress record for the initial training period from February 6 to February 28, 2025. Footnote 6 [ 17 ] In other words, the evidence showed that the Claimant applied for assistance for her program from [NAME] and was approved, that [NAME] paid her tuition, and that the Claimant was required to report her attendance and progress to [NAME]. Taken together, the evidence strongly supports an inference that the Claimant was referred to the program by [NAME]. [NAME] is a “designated authority” under section 25 of the EI Act. [ 18 ] The General Division made an error of fact when it said there was no evidence the Claimant was referred by [NAME]. Remedy [ 19 ] I accept the recommendation of the parties that I should substitute my decision for that of the General Division. My decision [ 20 ] Claimants who leave their employment voluntarily without just cause are disqualified from receiving benefits. Footnote 7 The law says that they will have just cause only where they had no reasonable alternatives to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances. Footnote 8 [ 21 ] Based on my own review of the evidence highlighted earlier in this decision, I find that it is more likely than not that the Claimant was referred to her training program by [NAME]. [ 22 ] In another decision of the Appeal Division ( E.G .), the member held that the General Division had not considered all the circumstances when it decided that the claimant did not have just cause. Footnote 9 The General Division in that case failed to consider that the Claimant had been referred to her training program in accordance with section 25 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). [ 23 ] I agree that the [NAME] referral is a relevant circumstance, and that I must take it into consideration when deciding whether the Claimant had reasonable alternatives. I also accept that it was not a reasonable alternative for the Claimant to abandon the training after securing the referral. [ 24 ] I accept and confirm the General Division’s findings that the other alternatives to leaving that had been proposed by the Commission originally were not reasonable. [ 25 ] This means that the Claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving, so she had just cause for leaving her employment. Conclusion [ 26 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 27 ] The General Division made an error of fact. I have corrected that error, and found that the Claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. She is not disqualified from receiving benefits. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1)(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD10-30. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD10-35. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD10-31 to GD10-34. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD10-40. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD11-47 to 50. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 30(1) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME].  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2020  SST  748. Return to footnote 9 referrer