AK v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

AK v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

On the balance of probabilities the Commission proved the claimant willfully refused to comply with a clear mandatory vaccination policy, knew the consequences including unpaid leave, and that refusal caused loss of employment; such conduct constitutes misconduct under ss 30–31 of the EI Act and disentitles the claimant to EI benefits, and no evidence or argument the claimant could present would change that outcome, warranting summary dismissal.

Citation
2022 SST 1162
Parties
Appellant/claimant: A. K.; Respondent/commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division – Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal summarily dismissed; claimant disentitled from Employment Insurance benefits
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Suspension, Leave of Absence, Vaccination Mandate, Entitlement to Benefits, Summary Dismissal
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Privacy Law Misconduct Suspension Leave of Absence Vaccination Mandate +2 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. K.

Appellant/claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent/commission

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division – Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lost employment because of misconduct under the EI Act
  2. 2 Whether a leave of absence imposed by the employer amounts to a suspension for EI disentitlement purposes
  3. 3 Whether refusal to disclose vaccination status or to be vaccinated is wilful misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Commission proved the claimant willfully refused to comply with a clear mandatory vaccination policy, knew the consequences including unpaid leave, and that refusal caused loss of employment; such conduct constitutes misconduct under ss 30–31 of the EI Act and disentitles the claimant to EI benefits, and no evidence or argument the claimant could present would change that outcome, warranting summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal summarily dismissed; claimant disentitled from Employment Insurance benefits

Orders

  • Appeal summarily dismissed
  • Claimant disqualified from EI benefits pursuant to findings of suspension for misconduct