ME v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

ME v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal is refused because the claimant did not identify any arguable reviewable error under s.58(1); the General Division correctly found on the preponderance of evidence that the claimant wilfully refused to comply with a vaccination policy and was dismissed for misconduct, and the General Division properly declined to adjudicate reasonableness, accommodation or constitutional/human rights issues which belong to other forums.

Citation
2023 SST 125
Parties
Applicant/claimant: M. E.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal Division / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Vaccination Policy, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Judicial Bias
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Misconduct Vaccination Policy Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Judicial Bias

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. E.

Applicant/claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal Division / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division committed a reviewable error under s.58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant lost her job because of misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act due to refusal to comply with an employer vaccination policy
  3. 3 Whether the General Division erred by declining to assess the reasonableness of the employer's vaccination policy as applied to a remote worker

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the claimant did not identify any arguable reviewable error under s.58(1); the General Division correctly found on the preponderance of evidence that the claimant wilfully refused to comply with a vaccination policy and was dismissed for misconduct, and the General Division properly declined to adjudicate reasonableness, accommodation or constitutional/human rights issues which belong to other forums.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused; appeal will not proceed