JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant consciously and voluntarily refused to comply with a vaccination policy that had become a fundamental condition of employment, and that such deliberate refusal constituted wilful misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act, rendering the appellant disqualified from EI benefits.

Citation
2022 SST 498
Parties
Appellant: J. C.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification From EI Benefits, Vaccination Mandate, Termination for Non Compliance, Medical Privacy, Accommodation
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour and Employment Law Health and Safety Law Social Security Law Misconduct Disqualification From EI Benefits Vaccination Mandate +3 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. C.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the appellant lose his job because of misconduct?
  2. 2 Does a deliberate refusal to comply with an employer vaccination policy constitute wilful misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act?
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should assess the reasonableness of the employer's vaccination policy in determining EI misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant consciously and voluntarily refused to comply with a vaccination policy that had become a fundamental condition of employment, and that such deliberate refusal constituted wilful misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act, rendering the appellant disqualified from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits under section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act