AA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the Appeal Division found no arguable case: the General Division correctly applied the legal standard for misconduct and reasonably treated the Claimant's right-to-refuse-vaccination/human-rights arguments as irrelevant to the EI misconduct determination.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2024 SST 449
Parties: Claimant: A. A.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court: Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 29 April 2024
Procedural Posture: Employment Insurance Leave to Appeal / Appeal Division Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics: Misconduct, Leave to Appeal, Mandatory Vaccination Policy, Jurisdictional Error
Source Language: english

Employment Insurance Administrative Law Human Rights Misconduct Leave to Appeal Mandatory Vaccination Policy Jurisdictional Error

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 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

A. A.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Leave to Appeal / Appeal Division Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the General Division failed to consider the Claimant's right to refuse vaccination
2 Whether the General Division misinterpreted the legal meaning of misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

Leave to appeal refused; the appeal will not proceed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.