7 West Café v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

7 West Café v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Employer failed to meet its onus to prove the claimant personally engaged in willful misconduct causing her dismissal; credible evidence established the claimant acted under the direction of the manager on duty, material evidence (video) was not produced, witness statements did not specifically substantiate the employer's version, and therefore the claimant is not disqualified under s.30 of the EI Act.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 41
Parties
Appellant/employer: 7 West Café; Claimant/added Party: C. B.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal Misconduct/disqualification / General Division Hearing and Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Insurance, Misconduct, Disqualification From Benefits
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Social Security/benefits Law Employment Insurance Misconduct Disqualification From Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

7 West Café

Appellant/employer

C. B.

Claimant/added Party

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal Misconduct/disqualification / General Division Hearing and Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer proved on a balance of probabilities that the claimant lost employment due to her own misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct, if any, amounted to "misconduct" within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act
  3. 3 Whether external determinations (LRB decision) are determinative for EI misconduct analysis

Ratio Decidendi

Employer failed to meet its onus to prove the claimant personally engaged in willful misconduct causing her dismissal; credible evidence established the claimant acted under the direction of the manager on duty, material evidence (video) was not produced, witness statements did not specifically substantiate the employer's version, and therefore the claimant is not disqualified under s.30 of the EI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed