Employment Insurance Just Cause Criteria Explained

Citation: X  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission and LF , 2026  [NAME]  13 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Added Party: L. F. Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (716870) dated April 9, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 7, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant, [NAME] Appellant’s spouse, [NAME] Appellant’s representative, [NAME] Decision date: January 9, 2026 File number: GE-25-3298 On this page Decision Overview Matters to consider first Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Appellant’s (Employer’s) appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The added party (Claimant) has shown just cause (in other words, a reason the law accepts) for leaving her job when she did. This means she isn’t disqualified from regular Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. Overview [ 3 ] The Claimant left her job on December 16, 2024. She applied for regular [NAME]. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) started her claim (benefit period) effective December 15, 2024. [ 4 ] The Commission looked at the Claimant’s reasons for leaving. Initially, the Commission decided that the Claimant voluntarily left (or chose to quit) her job without just cause. The Commission imposed a stop payment (disqualification) and refused to pay he [ 5 ] During the reconsideration process the Commission changed its decision. Footnote 1 The Commission decided the Claimant left her job with just cause and removed the r regular [NAME]. disqualification. The Commission wrote to the Employer and advised that it had approved the Claimant’s reason for leaving her job. [ 6 ] The Employer disagreed with the Commission and submitted an appeal to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. Footnote 2 The Employer said they had no desire to challenge the Claimant’s eligibility to [NAME] but feel it is necessary to defend their business. Footnote 3 Matters to consider first Appeal returned from the Appeal Division [ 7 ] This is the second time this appeal has been before the Tribunal’s General Division. The Claimant appealed the General Division’s June 2, 2025, decision to the Appeal Division. Footnote 4 [ 8 ] The Appeal Division decided that my colleague in the General Division made errors of procedural fairness and of law. The Appeal Division returned the matter to the General Division to be reconsidered. Footnote 5 [ 9 ] The appeal was returned to me, a different member of the General Division. I must consider the appeal De Novo, (a new), and take a fresh look at all the circumstances at the time the Claimant left her job and determine whether the Claimant has proven she had no reasonable alternative to leaving her job when she did. Jurisdiction [ 10 ] The Claimant raised additional concerns I have not addressed in this decision. I can't consider them because they are outside of my jurisdiction. Put another way, I can only consider the legal test for the issue(s) the Employer appealed, which relate to whether the Claimant voluntarily left her job with just cause. Footnote 6 [ 11 ] I don’t have the authority to determine whether the employer’s actions were unlawful. Equally, I do not have the authority to decide whether the employer breached any of the Claimant’s rights as an employee under other laws, such as Human Rights, Employment Standards, Occupational Health and Safety, Labour laws, or the Criminal Code. Footnote 7 If the Claimant wishes to pursue such claims against her employer her recourse is to pursue those claims in the proper court or tribunal that deals with those particular matters. [ 12 ] Further, I can’t decide charter arguments in this appeal because the Employer didn’t file a charter appeal. A charter challenge or a charter appeal is not an appeal that an employee files against an employer. A charter challenge is where someone files an appeal challenging a specific section of a law. Not all parties appeared at the January 7, 2026, hearing [ 13 ] The Employer appeared at the hearing however, the Commission and Claimant didn’t appear on January 7, 2026. I think both the Commission and Claimant received the Notice of Hearing the Tribunal sent by email on December 17, 2025, because there is no indication that their emails failed to send. [ 14 ] Further, the day before the hearing the Tribunal received submissions from the Claimant in which she mentions the hearing date and how the hearing may go ahead in the absence of a party. Footnote 8 The Claimant clearly states that, “she will not attend the hearing,” and asks the Tribunal to base its decision on the appeal record. Footnote 9 She makes no mention of requesting an adjournment. Instead, she states she has concluded it would not be of any benefit to attend the hearing on January 7, 2026. Footnote 10 [ 15 ] As I am satisfied all parties were notified of the teleconference hearing, I proceeded to determine the merits of this appeal. When doing so, I have considered all relevant evidence received on this file prior to and during the January 7, 2026, hearing. That said, I have not referenced every document or piece of evidence in this decision. Given the volume and duplication of documents, I have referenced some examples which are relevant to the issue(s) being determined. Footnote 11 Issues [ 16 ] Did the Claimant voluntarily leave her job? [ 17 ] If so, did she have just cause for leaving? Analysis Voluntary leaving [ 18 ] The parties agree the Claimant voluntarily left (quit) her job. The undisputed evidence is that on December 16, 2024, the Claimant quit because she felt the Employer wasn’t considering her input on how to manage another employee’s performance and he broke their agreement that she would only do bookkeeping duties. Footnote 12 [ 19 ] Accordingly, I find as fact that the Claimant voluntarily left her job. I will now decide if the Claimant had just cause to leave, when she did. Just cause [ 20 ] The parties don’t agree that the Claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her job when she did. [ 21 ] The law says you are disqualified from receiving benefits if you left your job voluntarily and you didn’t have just cause. Footnote 13 Having a good reason for leaving a job isn’t enough to prove just cause. [ 22 ] The law explains what it means by “just cause.” The law says you have just cause to leave if you had no reasonable alternative to quitting your job when you did. It says you have to consider all the circumstances at the time the Claimant quit. Footnote 14 [ 23 ] It is up to the Claimant to prove she had just cause. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that she has to show it is more likely than not that her only reasonable option was to quit. Footnote 15 [ 24 ] When I decide whether the Claimant had just cause, I have to look at all of the circumstances that existed when the Claimant quit. The law sets out some of the circumstances I have to look at, but that list is not exhaustive. Footnote 16 [ 25 ] After I decide which circumstances apply to the Claimant, she then has to show that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving at that time. Footnote 17 The circumstances that existed when the Claimant quit [ 26 ] I recognize that the circumstances, as presented by the Claimant, have changed over time. The Claimant has referred to the following circumstances in her submissions: Discrimination on a prohibited ground within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), Antagonism with a supervisor if the Claimant isn’t primarily responsible, Harassment, Significant changes in work duties, and Toxic work environment. Footnote 18 [ 27 ] Although the Claimant may perceive those circumstances existed, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove they existed at the time she quit. I’ve set out my reasons below. Discrimination [ 28 ] The Claimant didn’t identify any prohibited ground under the CHRA for which she claimed discrimination. She told the Commission that she looked up the definition of discrimination, and she determined she was being discriminated against. Footnote 19 The Employer denies that the Claimant was discriminated against. He says there were interpersonal issues in the workplace, but they were caused by the Claimant. [ 29 ] In her submissions to the Appeal Division, she states that there were conflicts with the Employer that were out of her control and the “discrimination type matches the definition of discrimination in the Employment Insurance Actand Regulations – no Canadian Human Rights.” Footnote 20 The EI Act and EI Regulations don’t define discrimination.

Accordingly, I find the Claimant has failed to show she was discriminated against. Antagonism [ 30 ] I find there is insufficient evidence to prove antagonism with the Claimant’s supervisor where the Claimant isn’t primarily responsible. The text messages on file only show respectful communications between the Claimant and Employer. Footnote 21 Although the Claimant may have perceived that the Employer had close relationships with other employees, while apparently isolating her, the evidence doesn’t support there was antagonism with her supervisor. Harassment [ 31 ] The Claimant hasn’t provided sufficient evidence to prove she was subjected to harassment. Footnote 22 While I acknowledge the Claimant may have overheard other employees talking in the front office about subjects she took offense too, or she may have perceived the topic of a conversation with the Employer’s wife to be something it was not intended to be, I am not convinced those situations constitute workplace harassment. This is because there is insufficient evidence to show the Employer or the other staff knew she was listening or they should reasonably have known that their conversations amongst themselves would cause offence, embarrassment, humiliation, or other psychological or physical injury to the Claimant, while she was working inside her office. Nor do I find there is sufficient evidence to prove the conversation with the Employer’s wife about taking care of one’s mental health constitutes harassment. [ 32 ] Further, I also considered the fact that the alleged harassing and discriminatory conversations which the Claimant raised, occurred prior to her quitting the second time in May 2023. So, she would have been aware of the workplace environment when she agreed to return to work in May 2023, where she continued working until December 16, 2024. Significant changes to work duties [ 33 ] I find the Claimant failed to show the Employer made significant changes to her work duties. The text messages on file clearly show the Claimant offering to do other duties, in addition to her bookkeeping duties. The evidence also supports that the Claimant acted on her own initiative when she went into the front office on December 13, 2024, to speak with [NAME]. [ 34 ] There is no dispute that the Claimant told the Employer she wanted to only do her bookkeeping duties at different times during her employment. Each time the Employer agreed. This appears to be the agreement that the Claimant says the Employer changed on Friday, December 13, 2024. The Claimant says she determined the Employer breached this agreement when another employee, [NAME], opened her door and asked her to cover the front office. Although the Employer may have failed to tell [NAME] not to interrupt or speak with the Claimant if her office door was closed, I do not find this to be evidence that the Employer made significant changes to her work duties or breached their agreement that she would focus on doing her bookkeeping duties. Toxic work environment [ 35 ] I acknowledge that the Claimant submitted to the Appeal Division that my colleague in General Division erred by failing to consider her “right to leave” and that circumstances including whether the environment was untenable or toxic must be considered. Footnote 23 That said, the issues to be determined here are whether the Claimant voluntarily left with just cause for the purpose of [NAME], not whether she had the right to leave under any other law. [ 36 ] The Employer has consistently disputed the Claimant’s allegations of a toxic work environment. I recognize the Claimant states that the Employer and his wife’s expressed attitudes and demeaning statements toward her reveal a clear disdain that emasculates their position and fostered a toxic work environment. Footnote 24 But such generalized bold statements are not sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a toxic work environment. Instead, I find the objective evidence, including the text messages on file, support that the work environment was congenial rather than toxic. Other circumstances [ 37 ] The law states that I must consider all circumstances when determining whether the Claimant had just cause. So, I also considered whether the location of the workplace may have been a relevant circumstance and whether the work environment was a danger to the Claimant’s health. Work location [ 38 ] Based on the documents on file, the Claimant worked for the Employer as a bookkeeper in a small northern town. It appears that both the Claimant and the Employer may have acted in a guarded manner to limit any negative effects on their reputations or ability to earn an income in their small town. [ 39 ] For example, the Employer said that they are, “not challenging [the Claimant’s] eligibility for unemployment benefits; however, we are deeply concerned about the potential harm to the company’s reputation, workplace culture, and the personal integrity of its leadership. Footnote 25 At the January 7, 2026, hearing, the Employer clarified that the purpose of their appeal was to clarify their narrative. [ 40 ] The documents show how quick the Claimant responds or becomes upset at any mention of a medical or mental health condition. However, she clearly speaks to mental health conditions in her application when describing anxiety, and in the letter to her Member of Parliament when she describes her depression and PTSD. Whereas the Employer has consistently said that the Claimant didn’t tell them she had any medical conditions or that she required accommodations, which supports that she was trying to keep her medical condition private. [ 41 ] I have also considered how the Claimant initially applied for regular [NAME]. On that application she provides a description of what occurred setting out a detailed account of an anxiety attack immediately followed by saying she is “not prone to anxiety.” Although the medical notes clearly indicate she was being seen by her medical doctor. I find this also shows how she was trying to keep her medical condition private, even though she was clearly struggling and working to get healthy at that time. [ 42 ] The undisputed evidence is that the Claimant is an ethical, intelligent, hard-working individual. She appears to struggle with interpersonal relationships and has worked very hard to find a career in their small town where she attempted to work and manage her medical condition in private, without rumours or public scrutiny. So, I find that working in a small northern town is a circumstance which contributed to the Claimant’s actions. Employment that is a danger to health [ 43 ] I find the Claimant quit her job because her employment was a danger to her health, for the following reasons. [ 44 ] The Employer and their witnesses presented evidence where the Claimant perceived conversations as situations they were not. For example, there were times the Claimant thought they were talking about her and saying negative things about her mental health when the parties were discussing other friends or situations. And the Claimant submitted an audio recording of a meeting she had with the bank manager about a bank teller whom the Claimant said mistreated her when asking to see her identification. [ 45 ] The Employer provided evidence of when the Claimant quit on two previous occasions. The first time, she misperceived a note left by the Employer to be referencing her work. The second time was when she thought another employee’s behaviour may reflect upon her in a negative way and the Employer wasn’t dealing with that employee in a manner the Claimant wanted. Footnote 26 [ 46 ] The Claimant provided conflicting evidence regarding her mental health. She submitted a copy of a letter she wrote to her MP in which she describes her previous depression, how she “planned to commit suicide”, and her diagnoses of “PTSD,” events which appear to have occurred prior to her working for this Employer. Footnote 27 [ 47 ] I see that on her application for [NAME], when describing the events of Friday December 13, 2024, the Claimant states she “felt an overwhelming feeling of anxiety.” It made her, “whole body literally shake” and she, “was so uncomfortable.” Immediately following that statement she says she is “not prone to anxiety.” Footnote 28 The Claimant also said that she, “had to leave…everything in my body told me if I don’t get out of this” or she was “going to be a sitting duck just like” she was “with D.” Footnote 29 I acknowledge that she tried to remain employed when she returned to work after the weekend but was only able to cope with working the Monday December 16, 2024, before quitting. [ 48 ] Further, the Claimant said she had consulted with her doctor regarding the Employer’s behaviour, while working there. She says her doctor knows the history of her employment, concerns, and experiences. Footnote 30 In another submission the Claimant said, “For my own mental health – I needed to be in a position which I could work alone.” She said, “It is too overwhelming emotionally for me to participate in these issues at work.” Footnote 31 [ 49 ] The documents on file include three medical notes as set out below. The first note, issued January 22, 2025, states the Claimant, “had to leave her job effective December 23, 2024. She will require 15 weeks EI , until April 7, at which time she will be reassessed.” Footnote 32 The second note, issued January 30, 2025, states that due to medical reasons, the Claimant has been unable to work effective December 23, 2024, and on going. Footnote 33 The third note, issued December 17, 2025, states the Claimant left her previous employment in December 2024. She was placed on medical EI on Dec 23, 2024, due to medical illness caused by her work environment. She was cleared to return to work on April 7, 2025, but it was recommended to not return to the previous job due to same. [ 50 ] After careful consideration of all the evidence before me, I find it is more likely than not that the Claimant quit because her employment was a danger to her health. Footnote 34 Reasonable alternatives [ 51 ] I find the Claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her job when she did. [ 52 ] The courts have held that a claimant doesn’t need to establish their working conditions were so intolerable that they had no choice but to quit immediately. Footnote 35 Instead, the question is whether, having regard to all the circumstances, they had no reasonable alternative to leaving their job when they did. [ 53 ] To show just cause for medical reasons a claimant must provide medical evidence indicating they quit their job due to medical reasons. Footnote 36 As set out above, the Claimant has provided that medical evidence. [ 54 ] There is no evidence that the Claimant was suffering from a physiological injury or condition, such as a broken bone or arthritis that affected her ability to do her job. Rather, the evidence supports the Claimant’s issues with her employment stem from stress, stress induced anxiety, depression, or mental health issues, which are psychological. [ 55 ] I agree with the Employer that there are cases where claimants are required to demonstrate they attempted to address their workplace concerns. Such as, asking for a leave of absence or seeking accommodations for any health concerns. Footnote 37 However, that isn’t always the case. [ 56 ] Even though the Claimant didn’t tell the Employer how her medical issue(s) were affecting her, it appears they were a continuous factor throughout her employment. This is supported by the fact she often misperceived situations to be about her; she discussed her employment with her doctor while still working for the Employer; and at various times she asked for accommodation by requesting to work alone and uninterrupted in her office. The Employer agreed to those accommodations setting out how she could do only bookkeeping duties, while working alone. However, it was the Claimant’s perception of situations involving other employees and their work ethics that caused her to interact with them and leave her office. [ 57 ] The Employer and Claimant work in a small town where residents have close knit relationships and jobs may be limited. Small towns are often prone to gossip so I understand why the Claimant may not have disclosed her medical information with the Employer, just as the Employer was concerned about their reputation and wanting to clarify the narrative. [ 58 ] Disclosing her medical condition or asking for a temporary leave of absence wouldn’t have changed how the working conditions affected the Claimant. She made efforts to overcome her condition the way she knew how, but when she could no longer cope, she had no other alternative but to quit. She says she looked for another job before leaving and had been discussing her situation with her doctor before she left. [ 59 ] The medical evidence clearly states the Claimant was placed on medical EI due to a medical illness caused by her work environment. It also states it was recommended the Claimant not return to the previous job due to same. [ 60 ] Based on the preponderance of medical evidence before me, I find it is more likely than not that the Claimant’s voluntary leaving was the only reasonable alternative in her situation. This means the Claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her job. [ 61 ] I agree with the Commission that the Claimant has shown she voluntarily left her job, with just cause. This means she isn’t disqualified from receiving regular [NAME]. Conclusion [ 62 ] The Employer’s appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See page GD3-55. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See appeal # GE-25-1488. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Se page GD13-4 and at 14:20 of the audio recording of the May 30, 2025, hearing. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See this Tribunal’s decisions on appeal GE-25-1488 and AD-25-467. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the Appeal Division’s November 24, 2025, decision of AD-25-467. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 My jurisdiction comes from the reconsideration decision made by the Commission. In this case, the Commission’s reconsideration decision reversed its initial decision and decided the Claimant voluntarily left her job, with just cause. See section 112 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act) and pages GD3-55 and GD3-57. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2024  FC  1544; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2007  FCA  36 and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  107. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  1282. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See page RGD15-2. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See page RGD15-4. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See page RGD15-2. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 The General Division (GD) does not have to refer to every piece of evidence that it has in front of it ( [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FCA  82 at para 10). Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See the text messages at pages RGD13-13 to RGD13-16. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 Section 30 of the EI Act explains this. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2011  FCA  190 at para 3; and section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2011  FCA  190 at para 4. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 These circumstances are prescribed in section 29(c) of the EI Act. See for examples pages GD3-9, GD3-18, GD3-48, GD3-12, GD3-13, GD3-45, GD8-19, GD8-14, GD10-114, GD10-119, AD16-14, AD16-16, and GD16-36. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See page GD3-38. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See page AD01-34. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 For examples see pages RGD13-11 to RGD13-16; GD11-2 to GD11-103; and GD12-104. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 When determining harassment, I am persuaded by a decision from the Tribunal’s Appeal Decision (AD) ND  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2019  [NAME]  1262 at para 34, which sets out factors to be considered when determining harassment. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See page AD16-37. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See page AD16-6. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See page GD13-4, and at 11:42-14:45 of the May 30, 2025, hearing recording. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See page RGD13-6. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See pages GD8-9 to GD8-10. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See page GD3-18 Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See page GD3-18. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See page GD3-48 Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See page GD8-12. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 Page RGD2-3. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 Page RGD2-5. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See paragraph 29(c)(iv) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2005  FCA  66 at para 7; [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2017 SSTADEI 437, 2017 CanLII 97203 at paras 47–57. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 Although I am not bound by the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles, I am persuaded by section 6.5.5 which requires a medical note to prove just cause to quit for medical reasons. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See CUB 38804. Return to footnote 37 referrer