Uni-Tech Windows Mfrs Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Uni-Tech Windows Mfrs Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Employer failed to meet the burden of proof that the employee's actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of section 30 because evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, there was no proof of prior warnings or a pattern of harassment, no clear evidence the employee threatened the coworker or that he knew his actions would lead to dismissal; therefore no disqualification under the Act.

Citation
2017 SSTGDEI 102
Parties
Employer: Uni-Tech Windows Mfrs. Inc.; Employee: R. G.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct Disqualification, Loss of Employment, Evidence and Credibility, Posting and Notice of Policy
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Employment Law Administrative Law Workplace Violence and Harassment Misconduct Disqualification Loss of Employment Evidence and Credibility Posting and Notice of Policy

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uni-Tech Windows Mfrs. Inc.

Employer

R. G.

Employee

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employee lost employment because of their own misconduct under section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the employer discharged the onus to prove misconduct on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the employee knew or ought to have known that his conduct would lead to dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Employer failed to meet the burden of proof that the employee's actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of section 30 because evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, there was no proof of prior warnings or a pattern of harassment, no clear evidence the employee threatened the coworker or that he knew his actions would lead to dismissal; therefore no disqualification under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed