JS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X

JS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X

The Appeal Division allowed the appeal because the General Division failed to address material inconsistencies in the employer’s evidence and overlooked key facts; the Commission conceded the legal test for misconduct was not satisfied and neither the Employer nor the Commission met their burden to prove the claimant’s conduct was wilful or that she knew dismissal was a likely consequence of being late, therefore there was no misconduct and the claimant’s hours must be included for EI purposes.

Citation
2021 SST 153
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: J. S.; Respondent / Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Added Party / Employer: X
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof, Evidence Evaluation, Remedy/substitution
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Tribunal Misconduct Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof Evidence Evaluation Remedy/substitution

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. S.

Appellant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent / Commission

X

Added Party / Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were inconsistencies in the Employer’s evidence and whether the General Division failed to address them
  2. 2 Whether the General Division overlooked material evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Employer and Commission proved that the claimant lost employment for misconduct and met the required legal test

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division allowed the appeal because the General Division failed to address material inconsistencies in the employer’s evidence and overlooked key facts; the Commission conceded the legal test for misconduct was not satisfied and neither the Employer nor the Commission met their burden to prove the claimant’s conduct was wilful or that she knew dismissal was a likely consequence of being late, therefore there was no misconduct and the claimant’s hours must be included for EI purposes.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • General Division decision rescinded and substituted: neither the Employer nor the Commission established misconduct by the Claimant
  • The Claimant may rely on the hours of insurable employment from the employment at issue for her Employment Insurance claim