Social Security Tribunal Rejects Claimant's Appeal Over Just Cause

[TRANSLATION] Citation: AN v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  300 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated July 14, 2025 (GE-25-1643) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 9, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 17, 2026 File number: AD-25-544 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. He is disqualified from receiving benefits as of April 2, 2023. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant applied for [NAME] ) regular benefits. A benefit period was established as of January 1, 2023. [ 3 ] After initially saying that the Claimant had stopped working because of a shortage of work, the employer said that he had voluntarily left. This was because he had told the employer that he would not be going back to work as of April 3, 2023. [ 4 ] The Commission decided that the Claimant wasn’t entitled to benefits after voluntarily leaving without good cause under the law. On reconsideration, the Commission changed its initial decision. It found that he wasn’t entitled to [NAME]  benefits as of April 2, 2023, rather than January 1, 2023. [ 5 ] The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 6 ] The General Division found that the Claimant didn’t have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving. It found that him being disqualified from receiving [NAME]  benefits as of April 2, 2023, was justified. [ 7 ] The Appeal Division gave the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that the General Division made an important error of fact and an error of law. [ 8 ] I am dismissing the Claimant’s appeal for the reasons that follow. Issue [ 9 ] Did the General Division make an error when it found that the Claimant didn’t have just cause for leaving his job? Preliminary remarks [ 10 ] The Claimant asked for the hearing to be postponed a third time. He was worried about his health. He wanted the hearing postponed for a few months so that he could see a doctor outside Canada. Footnote 1 [ 11 ] I denied the Claimant’s third request to postpone because there was no medical certificate. He attended the hearing. While he would have preferred being allowed to postpone, he said that he was prepared to proceed with his appeal. [ 12 ] It is well established that I have to consider only the evidence that was before the General Division in deciding this appeal. Footnote 2 So, I went ahead and listened to the recording of the General Division hearing. Analysis Did the General Division make an error when it found that the Claimant didn’t have just cause for leaving his job? [ 13 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made findings contrary to the evidence. It did so by minimizing and ignoring factors showing that the employer didn’t guarantee either a fixed schedule or full‑time hours. These facts were decisive in assessing whether it was reasonable to accept being called back. [ 14 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division misapplied the relevant legal framework by treating his situation as a leave or a refusal for personal reasons. It did so without considering the required criteria, including assessing reasonable alternatives, the stability of the call‑back, and essential working conditions. It didn’t properly analyze how being called back, without any guarantee of fixed schedules or full‑time hours, would impact his obligations and actual availability. [ 15 ] In an email to the Claimant, the employer told him that it expected him to be at his workstation and available for work as of April 3, 2023. It also said that if he didn’t show up for work, it would have to consider him to have resigned. Footnote 3 [ 16 ] The General Division found that the Claimant knew his conditions of employment and had accepted them. Footnote 4 He knew that, in addition to working in his immediate area, he would have to work in different cities. He also knew that his workdays could end at different times. This depended on the needs of the employer’s clients and on where he had to go. He also knew that the hours of work decreased during the holiday season. [ 17 ] The General Division found that the Claimant left his job when he didn’t go back to work on April 3, 2023. He had the option of keeping his job, but he took the initiative to end it by telling the employer that he wasn’t going to go to work on April 3, 2023. Footnote 5 The General Division found that he didn’t tell the employer when he would be able to go back to work, even though the employer emailed him and demanded that he be at work as of Monday, April 3 . [ 18 ] As the General Division decided, a reasonable alternative would have been for the Claimant to continue working his job while waiting to find another one that offered conditions better suited to his needs. This is all the more true given that the employer said that if it was calling back its employees, it was because it had at least 30 hours of work per week to offer them. Footnote 6 [ 19 ] The Record of Employment supports the employer’s version of events. It shows that the Claimant worked mostly between 35 and 60 hours per week from January 1, 2022, to December 10, 2022. Footnote 7 So, he could not reasonably find that he would not have enough hours of work when he went back to work. [ 20 ] During an interview with the Commission, the Claimant himself acknowledged that he had the opportunity to go back to work for his employer full time. But he chose to leave his job so he could focus on looking for a new one that better suited his needs and expectations. Footnote 8 [ 21 ] The Claimant had to present evidence before the General Division to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that, considering all the circumstances, he had no reasonable alternative to leaving to meet his parental obligations. [ 22 ] The General Division correctly found, based on the evidence, that the Claimant hadn’t shown that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving. Footnote 9 [ 23 ] I am of the view that the General Division correctly stated the legal test for voluntary leaving. It applied that test to the facts of this case. It looked at whether the Claimant, after considering all the circumstances, had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job. [ 24 ] The Claimant’s reasons for leaving might seem reasonable to him, and they might constitute a good personal decision. But they don’t meet the legal test for establishing that he had just cause for leaving his job under section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act . Conclusion [ 25 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant didn’t have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job under the law. He is disqualified from receiving benefits as of April 2, 2023. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD8-1. The first two hearings were scheduled for January 20, 2026, and March 19, 2026. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See GD3A-32, GD3A-33, GD3B-33, and GD3B-34. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 The Claimant testified that he had agreed to occasionally perform tasks outside his area of expertise. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See GD2-5, GD3A-31, GD3A-32, GD3B-32, and GD3B-33. The Claimant told the employer that he would not be joining the team on April 3, 2023, because of family issues. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See GD3A-30 and GD3B-31. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See GD3A-17 and GD3B-19. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD3A-22. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2010  FCA  95. Return to footnote 9