D. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

D. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

On the balance of probabilities the Commission failed to prove that the claimant committed the acts alleged in the terms that would constitute misconduct; the employer's accounts were inconsistent about whether the transactions were for the claimant or a co-worker, no investigative results were disclosed, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 121
Parties
Claimant/appellant: D. B.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Employer: Sears Canada Inc.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification, Dismissal, Progressive Discipline, Workplace Harassment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Misconduct Disqualification Dismissal Progressive Discipline Workplace Harassment +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. B.

Claimant/appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Sears Canada Inc.

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment by reason of her own misconduct under section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the Commission and employer discharged the burden to prove misconduct on the balance of probabilities and with clear evidence
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was retaliatory following the claimant's complaints of harassment

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Commission failed to prove that the claimant committed the acts alleged in the terms that would constitute misconduct; the employer's accounts were inconsistent about whether the transactions were for the claimant or a co-worker, no investigative results were disclosed, the claimant consistently maintained she acted for a co-worker and claimed harassment and retaliation, and the case law requires clear evidence of wilful or flagrantly negligent conduct—therefore disqualification under s.30 was not established and the appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Commission decision imposing indefinite disqualification under section 30 is set aside
  • Matter remitted to the Commission to reassess the claimant's entitlement in light of this decision