RM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

RM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant deliberately refused to comply with the employer's COVID-19 vaccination/testing policy after being informed of the policy and possible termination; that deliberate refusal constitutes wilful misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 SST 496
Parties
Appellant: R. M.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Vaccine Mandate, Eligibility for Benefits, Termination
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Misconduct Vaccine Mandate Eligibility for Benefits Termination

Source-derived case record

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

R. M.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the appellant lose her job because of misconduct?
  2. 2 Does refusal to comply with an employer COVID-19 vaccination/testing policy constitute misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant deliberately refused to comply with the employer's COVID-19 vaccination/testing policy after being informed of the policy and possible termination; that deliberate refusal constitutes wilful misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act, so the appellant is disqualified from EI benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Finding of misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act upheld; appellant disqualified from receiving EI benefits.