C. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

C. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The appeal is allowed because the employer failed to prove willful misconduct: the appellant credibly explained the comment as frustration over missing medication, there was no evidence she had been given the employer's policy or warned that such a comment could lead to dismissal, and therefore the conduct was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 4
Parties
Appellant: C. M.; Employer: 9080899 Canada Inc. O/A Comfort; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Hearing Before Social Security Tribunal General Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification From Benefits, Reconsideration, Employer Policy, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Misconduct Disqualification From Benefits Reconsideration Employer Policy Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. M.

Appellant

9080899 Canada Inc. O/A Comfort

Employer

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Hearing Before Social Security Tribunal General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant lost employment by reason of her own misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the conduct was willful or so reckless as to approach willfulness
  3. 3 Whether there was a causal link between the conduct and the dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the employer failed to prove willful misconduct: the appellant credibly explained the comment as frustration over missing medication, there was no evidence she had been given the employer's policy or warned that such a comment could lead to dismissal, and therefore the conduct was not shown to be willful or such that dismissal was a foreseeable consequence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; finding that the appellant did not lose her employment by reason of her own misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act