The Estate of D. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Estate of D. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The BOR erred by failing to make necessary findings—specifically whether the claimant (or his representative) actually notified the employer and whether that conduct was the reason for dismissal—and by not considering or weighing the representative's evidence; because the Commission did not prove on the balance of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 SST 1124
Parties
Claimant/appellant (deceased): D. L.; Representative and Executor for the Estate: W. L.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Employer: Unnamed Employer/Owner
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision on Board of Referees Record
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Benefit Entitlement, Findings of Fact, Procedural Completeness
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Benefits Misconduct Benefit Entitlement Findings of Fact Procedural Completeness

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. L.

Claimant/appellant (deceased)

W. L.

Representative and Executor for the Estate

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Unnamed Employer/Owner

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision on Board of Referees Record

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board of Referees ignored evidence that the representative notified the employer of the claimant's absence
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Referees erred in law by failing to make required findings of fact, including causation of dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The BOR erred by failing to make necessary findings—specifically whether the claimant (or his representative) actually notified the employer and whether that conduct was the reason for dismissal—and by not considering or weighing the representative's evidence; because the Commission did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the claimant failed to effectively notify the employer within a reasonable period, misconduct was not established and the claimant is not disqualified under s.30 EI Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Board of Referees set aside
  • Findings of misconduct not established; claimant not disqualified from EI benefits under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act