S. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

S. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal found the claimant removed the bed remote for safety and did not act willfully or recklessly; her comments were made out of concern and not abusive, there was no breach of duty and no statutory basis to treat the remote removal as violating the Long Term Care Act; therefore the conduct did not amount to misconduct under subsection 30(1) and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
2014 SSTGDEI 30
Parties
Claimant: S. L.; Employer: Tilbury Manor Long-Term Care Home; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification, Residents' Rights, Long Term Care, Verbal Abuse
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Health Care Law Misconduct Disqualification Residents' Rights Long Term Care Verbal Abuse

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. L.

Claimant

Tilbury Manor Long-Term Care Home

Employer

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment due to misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether removing the bed remote constituted a breach of resident rights or the Long Term Care Act
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's comments and conduct constituted willful or reckless behaviour amounting to misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the claimant removed the bed remote for safety and did not act willfully or recklessly; her comments were made out of concern and not abusive, there was no breach of duty and no statutory basis to treat the remote removal as violating the Long Term Care Act; therefore the conduct did not amount to misconduct under subsection 30(1) and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Claimant not disqualified under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act