Kmiec v Ole Tacos – 10.54

Kmiec v Ole Tacos
Digest no. 10.54

Sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Kmiec v Ole Tacos, unpublished opinion of the Ottawa Circuit Court, issued August 22, 1979 (Docket No. 78-4545-AV).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Charles M. Kmiec
Employer: Ole Tacos
Docket no.: B77 2254 56841
Date of decision: August 22, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: To determine whether a termination is a leaving or a discharge, the total facts of the matter must be assessed to determine the “proximate cause” of the termination.

FACTS: Claimant notified the employer that he was unhappy in his job and would give the employer two weeks notice of intent to quit when he had obtained another job. The employer notified the claimant he should set a definite separation date. After the claimant and employer discussed the matter, they agreed upon the date that claimant would end his employment.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for benefits pursuant to Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.

RATIONALE: “Our reading of the Referee’s opinion leads us to conclude that the Referee extended his consideration of facts and circumstances to those events occurring after claimant’s original notice to his employer that he intended to quit at some undetermined date in the future, and prior to the actual separation. … The Referee recognized that he was obliged to determine whether or not claimant was “primarily responsible” for his unemployment. We believe that such language is substantially synonymous with “proximate cause”, and that it goes beyond one who merely introduces the topic of a possible future separation.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 
6/91