Background
Oluwatoyin Felix Dairo worked as a security guard at the YMCA’s National Capital Region location in Ottawa. On December 31, 2024, he voluntarily left his employment to enroll in a full-time Medical Radiation Technology program at Algonquin College, which began on January 6, 2025. He applied for Employment Insurance benefits on January 11, 2025.
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission denied his application on February 4, 2025, finding he had voluntarily left without “just cause” and was unavailable for work while attending school full-time. A request for reconsideration was denied on May 7, 2025. Dairo appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on July 7, 2025. He then sought leave to appeal to the Appeal Division on July 23, 2025, which was also denied. Dairo brought a judicial review application to the Federal Court challenging the Appeal Division’s decision.
Dairo also sought to introduce a screenshot from the Algonquin College student portal documenting the program structure, claiming he only learned after acceptance that the program was compressed into two years rather than three. The Appeal Division rejected this as impermissible new evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Angela Furlanetto dismissed the judicial review application. The court held that the Appeal Division did not err in refusing to admit the screenshot as new evidence. Because the screenshot was not before the General Division when it made its decision, the Appeal Division properly characterized it as new evidence. The court noted that while there are limited exceptions for admitting new evidence on appeal (such as evidence providing general background or revealing unfairness), corroborating evidence already in the record does not qualify. Dairo’s discovery of the compressed program timeline, while potentially influential to his decision-making, did not reveal a reviewable error.
On the “just cause” issue, the court found the Appeal Division reasonably upheld the General Division’s conclusion that Dairo had no just cause for leaving. Under established Federal Court of Appeal precedent, full-time schooling does not constitute just cause for voluntary departure except in Commission-authorized programs. Although Dairo cited demands from his studies, lack of schedule flexibility with his employer, and job-related stress and health effects, the General Division identified reasonable alternatives: requesting medical leave, postponing school, continuing work instead of attending school, or seeking other employment. The court found no error in the General Division’s contextual analysis.
Regarding availability for work, the court upheld the finding that Dairo failed to rebut the presumption of non-availability that applies to full-time students. While such a presumption can be rebutted through contextual analysis—for example, where a student indicates willingness to abandon studies for suitable employment or has a history of maintaining regular employment while studying—Dairo could not meet this standard. His own admission that it was “absolutely impossible” to work while in school and his failure to demonstrate prior history of maintaining employment while studying weighed against him. Merely expressing a general willingness to work if opportunity arose, without making reasonable efforts to seek employment, was insufficient.
Key Takeaways
- Full-time schooling does not constitute “just cause” for voluntarily leaving employment under the Employment Insurance Act, absent specific Commission authorization
- Individuals leaving employment to pursue education bear the burden of identifying and explaining why reasonable alternatives (postponing school, continuing work, seeking flexible employment) were impractical
- Full-time students are presumed unavailable for work and cannot rebut this presumption by expressing mere willingness to work; they must demonstrate prior history of maintaining employment while studying or explicit readiness to abandon education for suitable work
- Appeal divisions do not generally accept new evidence that was not before the original decision-maker, even if it might corroborate existing evidence
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a longstanding principle in Canadian EI law: the system provides benefits for those involuntarily unemployed, not for those choosing to pursue education. Students and career-changers contemplating leaving employment should understand they are unlikely to qualify for EI benefits unless their circumstances fall within narrow exceptions (such as Commission-authorized training programs). The ruling makes clear that even compelling personal reasons—health concerns, schedule incompatibility, educational opportunity—do not override the categorical exclusion for those voluntarily leaving work for full-time studies.
The decision also clarifies the evidentiary burden in EI appeals. Applicants cannot introduce new evidence at the appeal stage to fill gaps in their original case. More fundamentally, the test for “availability” requires concrete action, not mere stated willingness. For students or others claiming availability while in school or engaged in other activities that constrain their time, demonstrating a genuine track record of balancing work and other commitments is essential to overcome legal presumptions of unavailability.