SD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

SD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

On the balance of probabilities the claimant engaged in repeated unauthorized absences and lateness after receiving verbal and written warnings that explicitly warned termination would follow; that conduct was willful or tantamount to willfulness and the claimant knew or ought to have known dismissal was a real...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2020 SST 218
Parties
Appellant (claimant): S. D.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division / General Division Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification From Benefits, Absenteeism, Tardiness, Disciplinary Warnings, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Employment Law Misconduct Disqualification From Benefits Absenteeism Tardiness Disciplinary Warnings +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. D.

Appellant (claimant)

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division / General Division Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant lose his job because of misconduct?
  2. 2 Whether repeated unauthorized absences/tardiness after warnings amount to misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act
  3. 3 Whether the Commission proved on the balance of probabilities that dismissal was for misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant engaged in repeated unauthorized absences and lateness after receiving verbal and written warnings that explicitly warned termination would follow; that conduct was willful or tantamount to willfulness and the claimant knew or ought to have known dismissal was a real possibility, therefore the dismissal was for misconduct and disqualifies him from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits due to dismissal for misconduct
  • Decision of the General Division stands