A. H. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

A. H. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence as more credible than the claimant's inconsistent statements and found that repeated written warnings, a vehicle use agreement and photographs demonstrating smoking, filth and personal use of the company vehicle established misconduct that caused the claimant's dismissal, warranting indefinite disqualification under s.30(1) EI Act.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 144
Parties
Claimant: A. H.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Social Security Tribunal General Division Decision After Teleconference Hearing (claimant Absent)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification From Benefits, Eligibility for Benefits, Credibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Employment Law Misconduct Disqualification From Benefits Eligibility for Benefits Credibility of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. H.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Social Security Tribunal General Division Decision After Teleconference Hearing (claimant Absent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the employer's documentary and testimonial evidence is credible and establishes a causal link between misconduct and dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was dismissed or merely laid off and whether warnings justified dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence as more credible than the claimant's inconsistent statements and found that repeated written warnings, a vehicle use agreement and photographs demonstrating smoking, filth and personal use of the company vehicle established misconduct that caused the claimant's dismissal, warranting indefinite disqualification under s.30(1) EI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits effective November 1, 2015 pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act (indefinite disqualification)