Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Richard Davies, a self-represented litigant, was denied Employment Insurance benefits after voluntarily resigning from his position as a bunk haul truck driver with Scamp Transport Ltd.

• The Commission determined that Davies lacked just cause for leaving under the Employment Insurance Act, as leaving his employment was not the only reasonable alternative in his case.

• Davies alleged constructive dismissal, harassment by dispatch, and unsafe working conditions, but could not provide specific incidents or persons involved to support his claims.

• Both the General Division and the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal upheld the denial, finding no procedural unfairness, errors of law, or material factual errors.

• The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Appeal Division's refusal to grant leave to appeal was justified and supported by the evidentiary record.

• No costs were awarded to either party, and the judicial review application was dismissed in its entirety.

The facts of the case

Richard Davies worked as a bunk haul truck driver for Scamp Transport Ltd. for thirteen months, from June 27, 2023, to August 1, 2024. On August 1, 2024, after completing his shift, Davies advised the Employer's Human Resources and Payroll officer that he was not happy with the workload he had been given that day and that he was giving his two weeks' notice and resigning. Later that day, the Employer's Human Resources Manager emailed Davies advising that the HR officer had passed on his message, and asked whether Davies preferred to work during the two weeks' notice period or end his employment then. According to the Record of Employment filed by the Employer, Davies "quit" his job. Davies subsequently applied for EI benefits, stating in his application that he had been "dismissed or suspended" because he "refused to perform a specific job" outside his job description.

Davies's claims of constructive dismissal and harassment

Davies maintained that his departure constituted a "constructive dismissal" rather than a voluntary resignation. He asserted that he was hired as a bunk driver or long haul truck driver but was occasionally asked by dispatch to make in-town deliveries, which he considered a unilateral change to his terms and conditions of employment. He explained that he had been asked to do in-town work approximately five times during his thirteen months of employment. Davies further alleged that truck dispatch was intentionally manipulating his shifts, and according to his own notes, he told the HR Manager he had "lost trust in dispatch" due to intentional, deliberate delays since July 2024. He also stated that the shift changes and in-town work impacted his pay. Additionally, Davies claimed he had been subjected to bullying and harassing behaviour from dispatch, although when questioned by a Service Canada officer he was unable to provide specific incidents or persons involved.

The Commission's denial and reconsideration

The Employment Insurance Commission determined that Davies was not eligible for EI benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without just cause, as defined in the Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23. The Commission found that "leaving [his] employment was not the only reasonable alternative in [his] case." Davies sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision under section 112 of the EI Act, submitting documents outlining his allegations of harassment, bullying, and constructive dismissal. A Service Canada officer spoke with Davies on January 2, 2025. During that call, Davies stated that he had no alternative to leaving as he was being bullied and harassed at work, that "everything really compounded" in his last month of work, that he had not looked for work prior to quitting because he had some money saved, and that he had a solid resume so he "thought he would be hired easily." The Commission maintained its decision, explaining that the in-town work was not unreasonable given the conditions of his employment, that there was no proof that he was targeted or that the delays were intentional to harass him, and that a reasonable alternative would have been to find alternative employment before quitting.

The General Division decision

The Social Security Tribunal's General Division upheld the Commission's denial in its decision dated February 17, 2025. As a first step, the General Division determined that the Commission had established that Davies voluntarily left his employment; that he was not terminated. It found that Davies submitted his resignation out of frustration, thinking that his Employer "would reach out to him to try to fix the problem." Instead, the HR Manager accepted his resignation. The General Division then assessed Davies's three grounds for claiming just cause under section 30 of the EI Act. It was not satisfied that the Employer placed Davies in an unsafe work condition, as the allegation arose out of one incident involving an implied request that he work longer than 15 hours, and Davies "refused this request and nothing further came of it." Regarding constructive dismissal, the General Division concluded that Davies had failed to demonstrate that there had been significant changes in work duties, as he had only been requested to work in-town on a few occasions. Concerning the bullying and harassment allegations, the General Division found that Davies had alternatives to quitting, including speaking to human resources, refusing to take the in-town shifts as he had done in the past, filing a complaint with either the Workers' Compensation Board or Employment Standards, or seeking alternative employment before leaving.

The Appeal Division's refusal to grant leave

Davies sought leave to appeal the General Division's decision, arguing a breach of procedural fairness, as well as errors of fact and law. The Appeal Division, in its decision dated March 11, 2025, found that none of these arguments had a reasonable chance of success and denied leave to appeal. After listening to the audio recording of the General Division hearing, the Appeal Division determined that the hearing was held in-person, was scheduled for 60 minutes, and lasted around one hour and 43 minutes. There was no indication from the audio recording that the General Division rushed Davies or "cut him off" during the hearing, and the hearing went overtime by nearly 45 minutes. The Appeal Division concluded there was "no arguable case that the General Division didn't follow a fair process." On the legal arguments, the Appeal Division held that the Commission's Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles was an administrative tool that does not have the force of law and therefore need not be followed, that the EI Act benefit of doubt provision under section 49(2) is only for the Commission to apply, and that while the law may not explicitly require an employee to contact a third party, the EI Act does require claimants to demonstrate that they had no reasonable alternative to leaving their employment. The Appeal Division also acknowledged that the General Division made a "minor factual error" in stating that a man named Timo, a manager, was also a truck driver, but found that this error had no impact on the outcome of the case.

The Federal Court's ruling and outcome

The Federal Court, presided over by the Honourable Madam Justice Turley, dismissed Davies's application for judicial review on March 13, 2026. Applying the reasonableness standard of review — confirmed as the appropriate standard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Sturgeon v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 46 — the Court found that Davies had failed to demonstrate any reviewable errors in the Appeal Division's decision. Justice Turley affirmed that the Appeal Division properly assessed procedural fairness, reasonably determined that the General Division made no errors of law, and reasonably concluded that the General Division's factual findings were supported by the evidence. The Court emphasized that paragraph 29(c) of the EI Act specifically requires a claimant to establish that they had no reasonable alternatives to quitting, and that the General Division found Davies had several reasonable alternatives open to him, such as speaking to his manager, refusing to take in-town shifts, filing a complaint with the Workers' Compensation Board or Employment Standards, or seeking alternate employment. The application for judicial review was dismissed in favour of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. The Respondent did not seek costs, and the Court ordered that none should be payable. No specific monetary amount was awarded or at issue in this proceeding, as the case concerned the judicial review of the Appeal Division's refusal to grant leave to appeal the denial of EI benefits.