P. P. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

P. P. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission and employer failed to discharge the legal burden of proving willful misconduct: the evidence was largely hearsay, key witness statements were produced after termination, the employer lacked written policies that would have put the appellant on notice, the alleged primary victim did not provide a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 49
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: P. P.; Employer: Teskey & Associates Inc; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification, Privacy, Confidentiality, Credibility of Witnesses, Retaliation
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Misconduct Disqualification Privacy Confidentiality Credibility of Witnesses +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. P.

Appellant / Claimant

Teskey & Associates Inc

Employer

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant lost employment by reason of his own misconduct under ss.29-30 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the conduct amounted to willful misconduct or was merely careless
  3. 3 Whether the employer/Commission met the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission and employer failed to discharge the legal burden of proving willful misconduct: the evidence was largely hearsay, key witness statements were produced after termination, the employer lacked written policies that would have put the appellant on notice, the alleged primary victim did not provide a statement, and the employer/Commission never verified the alleged images. Given these evidentiary gaps and that doubt must be resolved for the claimant, misconduct under ss.29-30 was not established and disqualification was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission rescinded insofar as it found the appellant lost employment by reason of his own misconduct