KR v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X

KR v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X

The General Division erred in fact and law by relying on the Employer’s perception alone, failing to apply an objective test to determine whether the Claimant’s communications amounted to a threat of harm, and failing to explain why it discounted the Claimant’s denial; on the evidence the Claimant’s verbal and text communications were not objectively threats of harm and therefore did not constitute misconduct, so the Claimant is not disqualified from EI benefits.

Citation
2020 SST 1009
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: K. R.; Respondent (commission): Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Respondent (employer): X (Employer)
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal to Appeal Division / Appeal From General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; General Division decision set aside and replaced: Claimant not disqualified from Employment Insurance benefits.
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Dismissal, Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Evidence Assessment, Objective Test
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Misconduct Dismissal Appeal Procedural Fairness Evidence Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. R.

Appellant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent (commission)

X (Employer)

Respondent (employer)

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal to Appeal Division / Appeal From General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the General Division ignore contradictions in the Employer’s evidence about when the verbal threat occurred?
  2. 2 Did the General Division fail to apply an objective standard to assess whether the Claimant’s verbal comments or text message constituted a threat of harm (misconduct)?
  3. 3 Did the General Division fail to provide reasons for rejecting the Claimant’s denial that he made a verbal threat?

Ratio Decidendi

The General Division erred in fact and law by relying on the Employer’s perception alone, failing to apply an objective test to determine whether the Claimant’s communications amounted to a threat of harm, and failing to explain why it discounted the Claimant’s denial; on the evidence the Claimant’s verbal and text communications were not objectively threats of harm and therefore did not constitute misconduct, so the Claimant is not disqualified from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; General Division decision set aside and replaced: Claimant not disqualified from Employment Insurance benefits.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • General Division decision vacated and replaced: Claimant did not commit misconduct and is not disqualified from EI benefits