I'm not conveniently forgetting anything, including some of the nasty remarks that were (prudently) edited.
The grounds were that I did not leave voluntarily for unjust cause, and it wasn't simply a situation where I 'didn't like my job or couldn't get along with my boss', i.e. my own fault or problem. The situation was one where I functioned well within the environment I had been in for years, but I was officially 'terminated' due to a closure. Three weeks later I was offered a new job role elsewhere in the company (obviously I was valued as an employee in order for that to occur), but it was not reasonably equivalent, or within my capabilities.
I understand that some people probably try to abuse the system, but ...
The fundamental purpose of (paying into) EI is to provide a safety net, enabling people to bridge the gap when they lose THEIR JOB due to no fault of their own. As if 'change' isn't hard enough, but to deny a person coverage because they can't function in an alternative, entirely unacceptable job is an abuse of power. If this is how EI functions regularly, they should be held accountable.
I don't know if the so-called 'experts' on this forum are current, ex, or just 'wanna' be' authorities on the subject-matter, but it is not your place to 'judge' others. Your knowledge is truly appreciated, but any passive/aggressive, snide, sarcastic responses are not. Please try to be more compassionate is all I'm suggesting, because most people who come here often are struggling enough.