RL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

RL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The claimant deliberately chose not to attest to vaccination status and did not obtain an exemption despite clear policy and deadlines; that conscious, deliberate non-compliance was wilful misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act and thus disentitles him from EI benefits for the suspension period.

Citation
2023 SST 233
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: R. L.; Respondent / Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Hearing on the Merits (reheard After Appeal Division Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Suspension, Disentitlement From EI Benefits, COVID 19 Vaccination Policy, Attestation Requirement, Jurisdictional Limits of Tribunal
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Social Security/benefits Law Misconduct Suspension Disentitlement From EI Benefits COVID 19 Vaccination Policy Attestation Requirement +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. L.

Appellant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent / Commission

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Hearing on the Merits (reheard After Appeal Division Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant suspended from his job because of misconduct?
  2. 2 Does refusal to comply with an employer vaccination/attestation policy constitute misconduct under the EI Act?
  3. 3 Is employer conduct or alleged contractual/collective agreement breaches relevant to the EI misconduct inquiry?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant deliberately chose not to attest to vaccination status and did not obtain an exemption despite clear policy and deadlines; that conscious, deliberate non-compliance was wilful misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act and thus disentitles him from EI benefits for the suspension period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant disentitled from Employment Insurance benefits for the period of suspension due to misconduct