M. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

M. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Tribunal allowed the appeal because the claimant did not wilfully breach the confidentiality policy: the wife’s termination letter did not reveal confidential personal information, the wife permitted its posting in the workplace, and the claimant did not know or ought not to have known his actions would lead to dismissal, therefore his conduct did not constitute misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 51
Parties
Claimant: M. L.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Confidentiality, Disqualification From Benefits, Reconsideration, Union Grievance and Arbitration
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Labour and Employment Administrative Law Misconduct Confidentiality Disqualification From Benefits Reconsideration Union Grievance and Arbitration

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. L.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment by reason of his own misconduct under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether copying and distributing the employee termination letter breached the employer's confidentiality policy
  3. 3 Whether the claimant knew or ought to have known his conduct could lead to dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal allowed the appeal because the claimant did not wilfully breach the confidentiality policy: the wife’s termination letter did not reveal confidential personal information, the wife permitted its posting in the workplace, and the claimant did not know or ought not to have known his actions would lead to dismissal, therefore his conduct did not constitute misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Claimant did not lose employment due to his own misconduct and is not disqualified under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act