K. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

K. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was sleeping at work; employer evidence was contradictory, inconclusive and largely hearsay while the claimant's testimony was consistent and credible; therefore the acts did not amount to misconduct and an indefinite disqualification...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 SST 464
Parties
Claimant: K. M.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Employer: Employer
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Reconsideration Following Appeal Division Remittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Dismissal, Employment Insurance Benefits, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Evidence
Source Language
english
Employment Law Administrative Law Social Security Law Misconduct Dismissal Employment Insurance Benefits Burden of Proof Credibility of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. M.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Employer

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Reconsideration Following Appeal Division Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant lose her employment because of the alleged offence?
  2. 2 Did the claimant commit the alleged offence (sleeping on the job)?
  3. 3 Has the Commission proven misconduct occurred on the balance of probabilities?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was sleeping at work; employer evidence was contradictory, inconclusive and largely hearsay while the claimant's testimony was consistent and credible; therefore the acts did not amount to misconduct and an indefinite disqualification under the EI Act should not be imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Indefinite disqualification under the Employment Insurance Act not imposed
  • Appeal allowed by the Tribunal