D. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

D. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Expert medical evidence established the claimant had a severe cocaine addiction that impaired his capacity for voluntary decision-making and, combined with an employer environment that tolerated similar absenteeism and provided no clear policy or warnings, the claimant's absences were not willful or reasonably foreseeable as leading to dismissal; therefore his loss of employment was not due to his own misconduct under s.30 EI Act.

Citation
2017 SSTGDEI 15
Parties
Claimant: D. C.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Employer: D. W.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal Misconduct Disqualification / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Addiction, Indefinite Disqualification, Medical Evidence, Foreseeability of Dismissal, Charter/human Rights Challenge
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Disability Law Human Rights Misconduct Addiction Indefinite Disqualification Medical Evidence +2 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. C.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

D. W.

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal Misconduct Disqualification / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment because of his own misconduct under s.30 EI Act
  2. 2 Whether absences were willful, voluntary or conscious given claimant's drug addiction
  3. 3 Whether claimant could have foreseen that his absences would lead to termination

Ratio Decidendi

Expert medical evidence established the claimant had a severe cocaine addiction that impaired his capacity for voluntary decision-making and, combined with an employer environment that tolerated similar absenteeism and provided no clear policy or warnings, the claimant's absences were not willful or reasonably foreseeable as leading to dismissal; therefore his loss of employment was not due to his own misconduct under s.30 EI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The decision of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission dated January 6, 2016 and February 23, 2016 is overturned.