Claimant Allowed to Receive Benefits Due to Just Cause

Citation: OP v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  35 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated September 19, 2025 (GE-25-2347) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 13, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: January 21, 2026 File number: AD-25-659 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The Claimant is not disqualified from receiving benefits. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant (Claimant) stopped working on January 22, 2025, and applied for [NAME] ) benefits. [ 3 ] After reconsideration, the Respondent (Commission) decided that he voluntarily left (or chose to quit) his job without just cause, so it couldn’t pay him benefits. It found that the Claimant had abandoned his job and that, instead of leaving when he did, he could have spoken with his employer regarding their argument to resolve any differences or provide clarity on his employment status. [ 4 ] The Claimant disagreed. He said the employer fired him after a heated argument and subsequently removed him from the company system. He appealed to the General Division of the Tribunal. [ 5 ] The General Division found that the Claimant left his job and that he had other reasonable alternatives then to leave. It concluded that he did not have just cause for leaving his job. [ 6 ] The Appeal Division granted the Claimant leave to appeal of the General Division decision. [ 7 ] The Claimant submits that the General Division made an error of law when it concluded that the Commission had met its burden of proving he had voluntarily left his job. He submits that he never quit his job. The Claimant submits that the General Division ignored evidence that he was removed from the system after his employer yelled at him that he was useless at his job and should never have hired him. [ 8 ] I am allowing the Claimant’s appeal. Issue [ 9 ] Did the General Division err in concluding that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job? If not, did the Claimant have just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment? Analysis [ 10 ] The Claimant submits that the General Division made an error of law when it concluded that the Commission had met its burden of proving he had voluntarily left his job. He claims that he never left his job but was fired. The Claimant submits that the General Division ignored the evidence that he was removed from the system after his employer yelled at him that he was useless at his job and that he should not have hired him in the first place. Did the General Division err in concluding that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job? [ 11 ] The General Division’s role is to consider the evidence that both parties have presented to it, to determine the facts relevant to the legal issue before it and to articulate, in its written decision, its own independent decision with respect thereto. [ 12 ] The Claimant said he was dismissed by his employer. He said that the employer criticized his work and told him he was useless and that they should not have hired him in the first place. The Claimant said he never had an argument with the employer to the extent that they did on that day. The employer “destroyed” him. The Claimant told the employer that he was going home for the day, because his medical condition was flaring up due to stress. Later that day, he found out that he no longer had access to his company system. He had three different log-in methods, and none of them worked. As a result, he believed he had been fired. [ 13 ] The Employer told the Commission that the Claimant didn’t return to work after January 22, 2025, due to a dispute they had had. The Employer said the Claimant wasn’t fired but rather abandoned the job. [ 14 ] The General Division found that the Employer’s remark that he should not have hired the Claimant in the first place, combined with the Claimant’s subsequent loss of company system access, could have caused confusion. Nonetheless, the General Division determined that it was the Claimant’s actions that initiated the separation by not returning or clarifying his status with the employer. [ 15 ] It is well established that the General Division must clearly justify the conclusions it renders. When faced with contradictory evidence, it cannot disregard it; it must consider it. If it decides that the evidence should be dismissed or assigned little or no weight at all, it must explain the reasons for the decision, failing which there is a risk that its decision will be marred by an error of law or that it will be qualified as capricious. Footnote 1 [ 16 ] I find that the General Division does not explain clearly in its decision why it assigned little or no weight at all to the Claimant’s evidence that he had been dismissed by the Employer. This was even more necessary after the General Division found that the employer's behavior could have created confusion for the Claimant. [ 17 ] In my view, it was the General Division’s responsibility to say, at least briefly, why it rejected the Claimant’s evidence that he had not returned to work because he considered himself to have been dismissed. The General Division did not do so. [ 18 ] This error of law that justifies my intervention. Remedy There are two ways to fix the General Division’s error [ 19 ] When the General Division makes an error, the Appeal Division can fix it in one of two ways:

1) It can send the matter back to the General Division for a new hearing.

2) It can give the decision that the General Division should have given. The record is complete, and I can decide this case on its merits [ 20 ] I find the record is complete. The parties had the opportunity to present their case before the General Division. I can give the decision that the General Division should have given. Did the Claimant voluntarily leave his job? [ 21 ] When imposing a disqualification for voluntarily leaving employment without just cause, the burden is on the Commission to show that leaving was voluntary. For the leaving to be voluntary, it is the Claimant who must take the “initiative” in severing the employer-employee relationship. [ 22 ] The Claimant said that the employer criticized his work and told him that he was useless and that they should not have hired him in the first place. He never had an argument with the employer to the extent that they did on that day. He felt “destroyed” by his employer. The Claimant told the employer that he was going home for the day, because his medical condition, known to the employer, was flaring up due to stress. He did not quit his job. [ 23 ] Later that day, the Claimant found out that he no longer had access to his company system. He had three different log-in methods, and none of them worked. As a result, he believed he had been fired. He never wanted to leave his job because he needed the job, the income, to support his family/daughter. [ 24 ] I believe the Claimant and give more weight to his evidence that he was dismissed by his employer. His testimony is credible and consistent with all his prior statements. On the other hand, I assign little weight or no weight at all to the Employer’s version of events. [ 25 ] When asked by the Commission about the conversation that took place on the Claimant’s last day, the Employer said that he did not yell or scream and that the Claimant hung up the phone after he was told the sales were off. Footnote 2 [ 26 ] Given the significant discrepancy between the Employer’s version and that of the Claimant, it seems clear to me that the Employer attempted to downplay before the Commission the seriousness of the altercation. [ 27 ] The evidence shows that the owner had a history of yelling at employees when he considered they did not do their job properly. Footnote 3 Furthermore, if this conversation had taken place in the way the Employer suggests, it is unlikely that it would have caused the Claimant's Multiple Sclerosis (MS) to ramp up to a point that he needed to go home. [ 28 ] The Commission relies on the text messages exchange by the parties to say that the Employer was inquiring about the Claimant’s whereabouts which strongly suggests that the employment relationship was ongoing. [ 29 ] However, the chronological analysis of the text exchange does not support that the employment relationship was ongoing. It rather supports the position that the Employer no longer considered the Claimant to be employed. Footnote 4 [ 30 ] While it is true that on January 27, the Employer reached for the Claimant to inquire about his whereabouts, the employer clarified in a subsequent text dated January 31 why he had tried twice to reach the Claimant. The Employer texted: “ I have tried to get a hold of you twice this week to avoid a delay and in your pay. You did not respond. We will help you first thing Monday.” [ 31 ] I find that the text messages filed as evidence do not mention anything about the Employer wanting the Claimant to return to work. Rather, they demonstrate that the Employer was of the opinion that the Claimant had abandoned his post, wanted the computer code and the keys to the building, and offered the Claimant to come and collect his check at the office. [ 32 ] When considering all the evidence, I find that it was not unreasonable for the Claimant to interpret the Employer’s words “ you are useless ” and “ I should not have hired you in the first place ” to mean that he was fired. The fact that he no longer had access to the company system on the same day reinforces his interpretation. I don't see how I could conclude that the Claimant made a voluntary choice to end his employment. [ 33 ] Therefore, I find that the Commission did not meet its burden of proving that the Claimant voluntarily left his employment. Did the Claimant have just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment? [ 34 ] Even if I had reached the conclusion that the Claimant left his job voluntarily, I would conclude that he had no other reasonable alternative but to leave his job. [ 35 ] A claimant does not have to demonstrate that there was no other alternative than to leave their job. Rather, the burden of proof requires them to demonstrate that there was no reasonable alternative other than to leave, considering all the circumstances of their case. [ 36 ] As mentioned previously, I believe the Claimant’s testimony to be consistent and truthful. [ 37 ] I find that the evidence demonstrates that the Employer's remarks were very harsh and hurtful, and it is not difficult to conclude that their working relationship was irreparable. A claimant cannot be expected to accept such derogatory remarks from his employer. The evidence also shows that the owner had a history of yelling at employees when not satisfied with their work, leaving the Claimant with the reasonable belief that this could happen again to the detriment of his health. [ 38 ] Requiring that the Claimant remain at his job while looking for other employment in such a work context would also be contrary to the requirements of section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act . [ 39 ] Considering all the circumstances of this case, if the Claimant did indeed leave his job voluntarily, he had just cause to leave his employment when he did. Conclusion [ 40 ] For these reasons, I am allowing the Claimant’s appeal. The Claimant is not disqualified from receiving benefits. Footnotes Footnote 1 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  13. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 GD3-43. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 GD3-39. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 The text messages must be read in the following correct order: GD3-26, GD3-25, GD3-48. Return to footnote 4