A. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

A. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The employer and Commission failed to discharge the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimant's conduct caused his separation; the Member preferred the claimant's consistent evidence over the employer's lone written submission and found he attended the site (albeit late) and was laid off when the placement agency lost its contract, therefore no misconduct and no indefinite disqualification under ss.29-30 EI Act.

Citation
2014 SSTGDEI 44
Parties
Claimant: A. C.; Employer: Apricot Solutions Inc.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Appeal to General Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Indefinite Disqualification, Overpayment, Onus of Proof
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Law Misconduct Indefinite Disqualification Overpayment Onus of Proof

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. C.

Claimant

Apricot Solutions Inc.

Employer

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Appeal to General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant lose his employment by reason of his own misconduct pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act?
  2. 2 Should an indefinite disqualification be imposed?
  3. 3 Did the employer/Commission discharge the onus to prove misconduct on a balance of probabilities?

Ratio Decidendi

The employer and Commission failed to discharge the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimant's conduct caused his separation; the Member preferred the claimant's consistent evidence over the employer's lone written submission and found he attended the site (albeit late) and was laid off when the placement agency lost its contract, therefore no misconduct and no indefinite disqualification under ss.29-30 EI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Findings: claimant did not lose his employment due to his own misconduct; indefinite disqualification under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act not imposed