SE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

SE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2024-06-24 Neutral citation 2024 SST 712 Reference number AD-24-369 Member Pierre Lafontaine Division Appeal Division Decision Appeal allowed Related decisions SST - SE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2024 SST 1021 - 2024-08-20 - General Division SST - SE v Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada - 2024 SST 1181 - 2024-10-03 - Appeal Division Subjects EI - Denied for misconduct - Reason for dismissal Procedural fairness - Right to present your case Decision Content [TRANSLATION] Citation: SE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 712 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: S. E. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Representative: Julie Villeneuve Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated May 17, 2024 (GE-24-1502) Tribunal member: Pierre Lafontaine Type of hearing: In writing Decision date: June 24, 2024 File number: AD-24-369 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] Permission to appeal is given, and the appeal is allowed. The file returns to the General Division for reconsideration. Overview [2] The Applicant (Claimant) lost his job. His employer said that he was let go because of his aggressive and abusive behaviour toward his co-workers. The Claimant denies that he was aggressive or violent with his co-workers. He says that the real reason he was let go is that he refused to withdraw his claim with the CNESST. [3] The Respondent (Commission) determined that the Claimant lost his job because of misconduct. It disqualified him from receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The Claimant asked for the Commission to reconsider its decision, but it upheld its initial decision. The Claimant appealed to the General Division. [4] The General Division found that the Claimant lost his job because of misconduct. [5] In support of his application for permission to appeal, the Claimant argues that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice. [6] I am giving permission to appeal and allowing the Claimant’s appeal. The file returns to the General Division for reconsideration. Issues [7] Should permission to appeal be given? [8] Did the General Division fail to observe a principle of natural justice? Analysis Should permission to appeal be given? Did the General Division fail to observe a principle of natural justice? [9] After reading the file, I decided to hold a settlement conference. [10] The Claimant argues that he did not see the notice of hearing from May 8, 2024, since he was in Morocco for an emergency. When he returned to Canada, he learned about the General Division’s decision. He quickly filed a notice of appeal with the Appeal Division. [11] The Commission does not object to the matter being returned to the General Division, since the rules of natural justice were breached. It considers that the Claimant did not have an opportunity to be heard. [12] A fair hearing includes the opportunity for a claimant to respond to the Commission’s allegations. [13] Based on the Claimant’s arguments and the Commission’s lack of objection, I am giving permission to appeal and allowing the appeal. Conclusion [14] Permission to appeal is given, and the appeal is allowed. The file returns to the General Division for reconsideration.