KD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

KD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal did not present an arguable case: the General Division had jurisdiction to decide misconduct under the EIA irrespective of how the employer learned of the conduct; the claimant admitted falsifying the screening checklist and not informing the employer of symptoms or contact status, and the privacy breach did not negate that wilful breach of employer and public health rules constituted misconduct.

Citation
2021 SST 168
Parties
Applicant / Claimant: K. D.; Respondent / Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Appeal Division Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application to the Appeal Division refused; leave to appeal denied.
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Leave to Appeal, Privacy Breach, COVID 19 Workplace Rules, Employment Insurance Disqualification
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Privacy Law Public Health Law Misconduct Leave to Appeal Privacy Breach COVID 19 Workplace Rules +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. D.

Applicant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent / Commission

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Appeal Division Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division exceeded its authority in finding misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the General Division overlooked a privacy breach of medical information
  3. 3 Whether the General Division made a legal error in applying the test for misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal did not present an arguable case: the General Division had jurisdiction to decide misconduct under the EIA irrespective of how the employer learned of the conduct; the claimant admitted falsifying the screening checklist and not informing the employer of symptoms or contact status, and the privacy breach did not negate that wilful breach of employer and public health rules constituted misconduct.

Court Disposition

Application to the Appeal Division refused; leave to appeal denied.

Orders

  • The Application to the Appeal Division is refused.