MS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

MS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal is refused because there is no arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error: the General Division reasonably found, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer established and communicated vaccination requirements (express or implied) in response to the PHO and that the claimant's non‑compliance amounted to misconduct; no procedural unfairness or legal error was shown.

Citation
2024 SST 439
Parties
Applicant/claimant: M. S.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Leave to Appeal / Appeal Division Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; the appeal will not proceed.
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Vaccination Mandate, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Reviewable Errors
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Social Security Misconduct Vaccination Mandate Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. S.

Applicant/claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Leave to Appeal / Appeal Division Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division made an important factual error in finding the employer had a vaccination policy
  2. 2 Whether any other reviewable error (procedural unfairness, jurisdictional error, or error of law) was made by the General Division

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because there is no arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error: the General Division reasonably found, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer established and communicated vaccination requirements (express or implied) in response to the PHO and that the claimant's non‑compliance amounted to misconduct; no procedural unfairness or legal error was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; the appeal will not proceed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal is refused.