R. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

R. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence as credible, found the employer's evidence and documentary proof (warning letters, termination notice, ROE coding) insufficient and inconsistent, and concluded the conduct (longstanding assistance by claimant's husband) was not willful misconduct or so reckless as to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 SSTGDEI 137
Parties
Claimant: R. B.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Employer: 1000210 Ontario Inc. o/a Pinherios Janitorial
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification, Record of Employment, Credibility Assessment, Attendance Issues
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour and Employment Misconduct Disqualification Record of Employment Credibility Assessment Attendance Issues

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. B.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

1000210 Ontario Inc. o/a Pinherios Janitorial

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment because of misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's husband's assistance in performing work amounted to willful misconduct
  3. 3 Credibility assessment between employer and claimant and evidentiary sufficiency of warning letters and ROE coding

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence as credible, found the employer's evidence and documentary proof (warning letters, termination notice, ROE coding) insufficient and inconsistent, and concluded the conduct (longstanding assistance by claimant's husband) was not willful misconduct or so reckless as to approach willfulness; therefore subsection 30(1) disqualification did not apply and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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