Canada Employment Insurance Commission v BE

Canada Employment Insurance Commission v BE

The General Division made an important error of fact by finding the claimant was dismissed for refusing to sign an agreement rather than for being absent without permission; evidence (notice of dismissal, employer communications, claimant admissions, Record of Employment) shows the claimant was expressly denied...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2026 SST 106
Parties
Appellant: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Respondent: B. E.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; General Division decision set aside and substituted
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Termination, Unpaid Leave, Error of Fact, Remedy by Substitution
Source Language
english
Employment Law Social Security Administrative Law Misconduct Termination Unpaid Leave Error of Fact Remedy by Substitution

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Appellant

B. E.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the General Division make an important error of fact about why the job was terminated?
  2. 2 If so, should the Appeal Division substitute its own decision?
  3. 3 Did the claimant lose her job for misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The General Division made an important error of fact by finding the claimant was dismissed for refusing to sign an agreement rather than for being absent without permission; evidence (notice of dismissal, employer communications, claimant admissions, Record of Employment) shows the claimant was expressly denied unpaid leave, warned she would be dismissed if absent, and nevertheless wilfully absent; because the claimant knew the consequence of dismissal her conduct amounted to misconduct under the EI Act and she is disqualified from benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; General Division decision set aside and substituted

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • General Division decision is replaced with a finding that the claimant lost her employment because of misconduct (absence without permission) and is disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance regular benefits