D. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

D. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal concluded the Commission and employer failed to prove the appellant's conduct was willful misconduct likely to cause dismissal; the appellant's placement of the resident in a wheelchair with a front-closing seatbelt was a reasonable emergency measure under the circumstances and not conduct that broke...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 109
Parties
Appellant: D. B.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Employer: Extendicare Tuxedo Villa
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Social Security Tribunal General Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; disqualification under ss.29-30 of the Employment Insurance Act set aside
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification, Restraint Policy, Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Emergency Restraint
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour/employment Law Social Security Misconduct Disqualification Restraint Policy Dismissal +2 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. B.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Extendicare Tuxedo Villa

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Social Security Tribunal General Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant lost employment by reason of his own misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's use of a safety belt constituted willful misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the employer/Commission discharged the burden of proving misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal concluded the Commission and employer failed to prove the appellant's conduct was willful misconduct likely to cause dismissal; the appellant's placement of the resident in a wheelchair with a front-closing seatbelt was a reasonable emergency measure under the circumstances and not conduct that broke the employer-employee relationship such that disqualification under ss.29-30 was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; disqualification under ss.29-30 of the Employment Insurance Act set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and appellant not disqualified from receiving employment insurance benefits under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act