X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and HM

X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and HM

The Employer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant committed theft or was grossly negligent. The Employer’s evidence was circumstantial, inconsistent and supported by a flawed, cursory investigation; the Tribunal relied on the criminal court findings and credibility assessments to conclude...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2020 SST 1204
Parties
Appellant (employer): X; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Added Party (claimant): H. M.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Claimant not disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification From EI Benefits, Theft Allegation, Gross Negligence, Reconsideration, Investigation Adequacy
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Labour and Employment Administrative Law Criminal Law Misconduct Disqualification From EI Benefits Theft Allegation Gross Negligence +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Appellant (employer)

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

H. M.

Added Party (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Claimant lose her job because of misconduct?
  2. 2 Did the Claimant commit theft of funds in 2017?
  3. 3 Was the Claimant grossly negligent in performing her duties?

Ratio Decidendi

The Employer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant committed theft or was grossly negligent. The Employer’s evidence was circumstantial, inconsistent and supported by a flawed, cursory investigation; the Tribunal relied on the criminal court findings and credibility assessments to conclude the Claimant did not lose her job for misconduct, so the Claimant is not disqualified from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Claimant not disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant reinstated as not disqualified for EI benefits