Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The General Division disagrees with the Appellant.

[2] The Appellant hasn’t shown just cause (in other words, a reason the law accepts) for leaving his job when he did. The Appellant didn’t have just cause because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving. This means he is disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

Overview

[3] The Appellant left his job on July 24, 2024, and applied for EI sickness benefits. He said he had to quit his job because it was affecting his mental health. The Appellant didn’t have a medical note, so he decided to switch his claim to regular benefits.

[4] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) looked at the Appellant’s reasons for leaving. It decided that he voluntarily left (or chose to quit) his job without just cause, so it wasn’t able to pay him regular benefits.

[5] I must decide whether the Appellant has proven that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job.

[6] The Appellant says that he was working in dangerous conditions and feared for his safety. He worked with homeless people and felt this was affecting his mental health because of his past life experiences.

[7] The Commission states that the Appellant could have spoken to his employer about the situation and asked for a transfer or a leave of absence. He also could have filed a workplace health and safety complaint.

Matter I have to consider first

The employer is not an added party

[8] Sometimes the Tribunal sends an Appellant’s former employer a letter asking if they want to be added as a party to the appeal. In this case, the Tribunal sent the employer a letter. The employer did not reply to the letter.

[9] To be an added party, the employer must have a direct interest in the decision. I have decided not to add the employer as a party to this appeal, because there is nothing in the file that indicates my decision would impose any legal obligations on the employer or prejudicially affect it in some direct way.^{Footnote 1}

Issue

[10] Is the Appellant disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his job without just cause?

[11] To answer this, I must first address the Appellant’s voluntary leaving. I then have to decide whether the Appellant had just cause for leaving.

Analysis

The parties agree that the Appellant voluntarily left

[12] I accept that the Appellant voluntarily left his job. The Appellant and the Commission agree that the Appellant quit on July 24, 2024.^{Footnote 2} I see no evidence to contradict this.

The parties don’t agree that the Appellant had just cause

[13] The parties don’t agree that the Appellant had just cause for voluntarily leaving his job when he did.

[14] The law says that you are disqualified from receiving benefits if you left your job voluntarily and you didn’t have just cause.^{Footnote 3} Having a good reason for leaving a job isn’t enough to prove just cause.

[15] The law explains what it means by “just cause.” The law says that you have just cause to leave if you had no reasonable alternative to quitting your job when you did.

[16] It is up to the Appellant to prove that he had just cause. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not that his only reasonable option was to quit.^{Footnote 4}

[17] When I decide whether the Appellant had just cause, I have to look at all of the circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit.^{Footnote 5} The law sets out some of the circumstances I have to look at.^{Footnote 6}

[18] After I decide which circumstances apply to the Appellant, he then has to show that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving at that time.^{Footnote 7}

The circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit

[19] The Appellant says that one of the circumstances set out in the law applies. Specifically, he says that there were working conditions that constituted a danger to his health and safety.^{Footnote 8}

[20] The Appellant was initially hired as a part-time respite worker from March 4, 2024, to April 6, 2024.^{Footnote 9} He would interact with persons from the general public, that come in off the street looking for resources for food, clothing, and housing. He said that he didn’t feel threatened or in danger at this position. But he was only doing this job while the employer was waiting for funding to be approved for him to work as a navigator.

[21] On April 6, 2024, he transitioned into the position of assistant navigator. His duties included interacting with persons released from Toronto East Detention Centre. These people would need to be aligned with supports for access to housing, clothing, and food. The employer said that in both positions, the Appellant would interact with people experiencing homelessness.

[22] The Appellant said the centre where he worked was in a dangerous part of the city. He testified there were gang members and homeless people in front of the building when he went to work. Some gang members had verbally threatened him. He testified that this was the main reason he left his job. But he didn’t talk to his employer about this or file a complaint with the R.C.M.P.

[23] He said he also had previous altercations with co-workers and clients inside the centre. He relayed that on one occasion a client had threatened his life. He said he reported this to his manager, but they told him the client was a “good guy” and they didn’t do anything about it. The Appellant didn’t report the incident to any authority, other than his manager.

[24] The Appellant also said that he had altercations with co-workers.^{Footnote 10} He said that on one occasion he was late after delivering food and the co-worker was yelling at him.^{Footnote 11} The Appellant told me he reported this incident, and the employer moved the co-worker to work in another area away from the Appellant.

[25] The Appellant explained that in addition to fearing for his safety, the interactions with clients was taking a toll on his mental health. He explained that he had once been homeless and without resources. He had compassion for his clients and wanted to help them as best he could, but this was stressful for him.^{Footnote 12}

[26] The Appellant reported he hadn’t told his employer about how the mental stress and anxiety he was feeling at work because he didn’t want them to know any of his personal issues or past trauma.^{Footnote 13} He testified that he didn’t talk to his doctor about how he was feeling and didn’t seek out any help to deal with his mental health.^{Footnote 14}

[27] The Appellant said the incident that caused him to submit his resignation involved a client who spoke no English, had no family, and was suffering from an eye disease.^{Footnote 15}

[28] He explained the client had no documents to apply for a health card or benefits and was suffering from an eye disease. The Appellant took him to the hospital almost daily. He often purchased him meals. He testified he often waited at the hospital with the client for many hours. He felt sorry for the client, so he would sign out when his shift was over but stay with the client on his own time. The employer confirmed the Appellant was overstepping his in his duties and wasn’t following Case Management Procedures by reaching out to clients and families on weekends and during off working hours.^{Footnote 16} The Appellant testified that in order for the client to see a certain doctor the Appellant would have to pay $100., but he had no income. So, the Appellant covered some expenses for his recovery. The Appellant said he didn’t mind doing this and didn’t expect to be repaid.

[29] However, when he returned to work and told his employer about his experience with the client, the manager told him they had petty cash to repay the Appellant.

[30] The Appellant explained that after these interactions with the client, on July 24, 2024, his manager told him to come to the office for a meeting. The Appellant testified that at the meeting were himself, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), his manager, and his supervisor. The Appellant explained what transpired during the meeting. He said they started talking about the client with the eye disease. The manager said he was overstepping his bounds with this client.^{Footnote 17} The Appellant said his efforts with this client led to this confrontational meeting and it is what led to his resigning.^{Footnote 18}

[31] The Appellant told the Commission he didn’t like the way management was dealing with the client. This also influenced his decision to quit.^{Footnote 19}

[32] They also discussed a previous incident where the Appellant reached out to an agency for the blind, to help the mother of one of his clients.

[33] The Appellant told me that all notes regarding clients and interactions are recorded on a computer software program. He believed his superiors hadn’t read his notes. He left the meeting before it was over and went home. He told me that he submitted his resignation by email that day and he didn’t return to work again. The employer confirmed that the meeting was organized to discuss the Appellant’s actions about not following procedures. He said the Appellant got offended and left.^{Footnote 20}

[34] The circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit were the Appellant was feeling stressed out from his duties as a navigator. He also felt unsafe at work.

[35] Considering all the circumstances that I have decided existed at the time the Appellant left his job; I will now look at whether he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job when he did.

The Appellant had reasonable alternatives

[36] I find the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to leaving.

[37] The Appellant says that he had no reasonable alternative because his job was affecting his mental health, and he felt his safety was being threatened.

[38] The Commission disagrees and says that the Appellant could have sought medical advice or asked for a leave of absence or transfer. If he felt his safety was in jeopardy, he could have made formal complaints with his employer or contacted an outside agency such as workplace health and safety.

[39] The Appellant told me the primary reason he quit his job was because he felt threatened by gangs. However, he didn’t tell his employer about this. A reasonable alternative to quitting would have been to discuss the situation with his employer or file a complaint with the RCMP or a government agency such as workplace health and safety.

[40] He said he didn’t feel his employer was handling the situation with a client (the client with the eye disease) appropriately. During a meeting, the Appellant was reprimanded for not following procedures correctly. I can appreciate the Appellant’s argument that he just wanted to help people. He was compassionate and wanted to do all he could for his clients. However, even if he disagreed with the employer’s procedures, a reasonable alternative to quitting would have been to look for other employment before quitting.

[41] The Appellant testified that before he worked as a navigator, he worked as a respite worker. He didn’t feel his safety was jeopardized in this position and his mental health wasn’t as affected. The Appellant said he didn’t discuss his mental health issues with a doctor. I find a reasonable alternative would have been to seek medical advice and possibly take a medical leave of absence.

[42] He also didn’t discuss his mental health concerns with his employer, and he didn’t ask for a transfer or a leave of absence or transfer.^{Footnote 21} The employer said if the Appellant had put in a request to return to the respite worker position, it would have been considered, however no request was submitted.^{Footnote 22} She said a leave of absence could have been permitted depending on the reason and the duration, but the Appellant didn’t ask for a leave of absence.

[43] I sympathize with the Appellant, but he quit on the spur of the moment after a meeting to discuss performance issues. I realize he was very compassionate and only trying to help his clients. However, considering the circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit, the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to leaving when he did, for the reasons set out above.

[44] This means the Appellant didn’t have just cause for leaving his job.

Conclusion

[45] I find that the Appellant is disqualified from receiving benefits.

[46] This means that the appeal is dismissed.