NH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

NH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal refused because the claimant did not raise any arguable reviewable error under s.58(1) DESD Act; the General Division correctly found on the preponderance of evidence that the claimant wilfully refused to comply with the employer’s vaccination policy, that this refusal directly caused his suspension and therefore constituted misconduct under established case law, and questions of accommodation or Charter/human rights are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be pursued in other fora.

Citation
2023 SST 855
Parties
Applicant/claimant: N. H.; Respondent/commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Leave to Appeal to Appeal Division
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Misconduct Under EI Act, Leave to Appeal, Vaccination Policy, Duty to Accommodate, Privacy and Bodily Integrity, Jurisdictional Limits of Tribunal
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Human Rights Law Social Security Misconduct Under EI Act Leave to Appeal Vaccination Policy +3 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. H.

Applicant/claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent/commission

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Leave to Appeal to Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division made a reviewable error of fact or law under s.58(1) DESD Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant’s refusal to comply with employer COVID-19 vaccination policy constituted misconduct under the EI Act
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal could adjudicate accommodation, human rights or Charter issues in an EI misconduct determination

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the claimant did not raise any arguable reviewable error under s.58(1) DESD Act; the General Division correctly found on the preponderance of evidence that the claimant wilfully refused to comply with the employer’s vaccination policy, that this refusal directly caused his suspension and therefore constituted misconduct under established case law, and questions of accommodation or Charter/human rights are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be pursued in other fora.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal is refused