NE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

NE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the appellant committed wilful misconduct because the credible evidence established she took routine customer samples openly to give to a customer, the employer gave inconsistent accounts, the relevant policy did not clearly address samples or require dismissal, and the appellant did not know and could not reasonably have known her conduct could jeopardize her employment; therefore the dismissal was not for misconduct and the appellant is not disqualified from EI benefits.

Citation
2024 SST 1674
Parties
Appellant: N. E.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; appellant not disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disqualification, Benefits, Termination
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Misconduct Disqualification Benefits Termination

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. E.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant lost her job because of misconduct under section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the conduct was wilful or such that the appellant knew or should have known it could jeopardize her employment
  3. 3 Whether the Commission met its burden of proof on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the appellant committed wilful misconduct because the credible evidence established she took routine customer samples openly to give to a customer, the employer gave inconsistent accounts, the relevant policy did not clearly address samples or require dismissal, and the appellant did not know and could not reasonably have known her conduct could jeopardize her employment; therefore the dismissal was not for misconduct and the appellant is not disqualified from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; appellant not disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Reconsideration decision (639247) dated February 8, 2024 set aside