Claimant Allowed to Receive Benefits After Leaving One Job

Citation: AL  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  119 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 12, 2026 (GE-26-350) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 8, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 11, 2026 File number: AD-26-182 On this page Decision Overview The Parties agree on the outcome of the appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am allowing the appeal. [ 2 ] I have accepted the agreement of the parties that the General Division made an error of law, that I should substitute my decision for that of the General Division, and that I should find that the Claimant had just cause or leaving his employment. Overview [ 3 ] A. L. is the Appellant. I will call him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for Employment Insurance ( EI benefits). The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 4 ] The Claimant held two jobs concurrently. He wanted to visit family outside of Canada, so he took an approved leave of absence from one job (the “Driver” job) in August 2024. He quit a second job (“Dishwasher” job) also in August 2024, because his employer would not approve a leave of absence. He returned to the Driver job when he came back to Canada. [ 5 ] The Commission determined that the Claimant voluntarily left the Dishwasher job without just cause, and it informed him that it was unable to use those hours to support his claim for benefits. The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider but it would not change its decision. [ 6 ] The Claimant appealed to the General Division, which dismissed his appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the General Division confirmed that he left the Dishwasher job without just cause and found that he was disqualified from receiving benefits. The Claimant appealed the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. [ 7 ] I find that the General Division made an error of law. I have made the decision the General Division should have made and corrected that error. I find that the Claimant had just cause for leaving his Dishwasher job, so he is not disqualified from receiving benefits. The Parties agree on the outcome of the appeal [ 8 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Commission conceded that the General Division made an error of law. It conceded that the General Division failed to apply the legal principle that a claimant may have just cause for leaving one of their concurrent positions when they have “reasonable grounds to believe” their other position would continue. Footnote 1 [ 9 ] The Commission recommended that I substitute my decision for that of the General Division. It conceded that the Claimant had just cause for leaving the one job, and that he should not have been disqualified. [ 10 ] The Claimant agrees that I should dispose of the appeal as recommended by the Commission. I accept the parties’ agreement [ 11 ] I agree with the parties that the General Division made an error of law. The General Division failed to consider the relevant authorities, or determine whether the Claimant had reasonable grounds to believe that he still had employment with one of his two employers. Remedy [ 12 ] I accept the recommendation of the parties that I should substitute my decision for that of the General Division. My decision [ 13 ] Both parties asked me to find that the Claimant had just cause for leaving his job. I accept their recommendation because it is consistent with the law and the evidence. [ 14 ] The evidence shows that the Claimant was approved by his one employer (Driver) to take a leave of absence. According to his Record of Employment ( ROE ), this employer accounted for 1461 hours of insurable employment within the 12-month period just prior to when he took the leave. Footnote 2 The Claimant quit his other job (Dishwasher) at approximately the same time he took leave. This job had only accounted for 430 hours of insurable employment. Footnote 3 The Claimant also gave the General Division phone screenshot evidence showing that he intended to return to his Driver job when he came back to Canada. Footnote 4 In addition, there was ROE evidence showing that he did return to the Driver job in October 2024. Footnote 5 [ 15 ] I find that the Claimant had reasonable grounds to believe his employment as a driver would continue when he returned to Canada. This means that the Claimant had just cause for leaving. He was not disqualified by reason of the fact that he left the dishwasher job. Conclusion [ 16 ] I am allowing the appeal. [ 17 ] The General Division made an error of law. I have substituted my decision for that of the General Division and applied the law. [ 18 ] The Claimant had just cause for leaving his employment as a dishwasher. He is not disqualified from receiving benefits because he left that job. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  Marier , 2013  FCA  39; Canada (Attorney General)  v  Leung , 2004  FCA  160. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-6. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-15. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 GD2-21 to 23. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-28. Return to footnote 5 referrer