J. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

J. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Member found the Commission and employer did not meet their burden to show the claimant acted wilfully or with the requisite mental element for misconduct because contemporaneous psychological evidence (PTSD, medication effects, memory and concentration deficits) explained why the claimant failed to call before shifts and used written notifications; therefore the claimant did not lose employment by his own misconduct and is not disqualified under ss.29–30 EI Act.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 152
Parties
Claimant: J. M.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Rehearing After Appeal Division Remittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Sickness Benefits, Disqualification, Overpayment, Accommodation, Return to Work
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Workplace Safety and Insurance Administrative Law Misconduct Sickness Benefits Disqualification Overpayment Accommodation +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. M.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Rehearing After Appeal Division Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment due to his own misconduct
  2. 2 Whether an indefinite disqualification under sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether claimant's psychological condition and medication negated the mental element required for misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Member found the Commission and employer did not meet their burden to show the claimant acted wilfully or with the requisite mental element for misconduct because contemporaneous psychological evidence (PTSD, medication effects, memory and concentration deficits) explained why the claimant failed to call before shifts and used written notifications; therefore the claimant did not lose employment by his own misconduct and is not disqualified under ss.29–30 EI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The General Division allows the appeal and finds the claimant did not lose his employment by reason of his own misconduct
  • The claimant is not disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act