Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court held that Chelsea Lees was an employee, not an independent contractor, of SXNM Successionmatching Ltd. for EI and CPP purposes.
The Appeal Division's decision was reasonable: the Court refused to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review; the applicant failed to prove good cause under s.10(4) EI Act for the entire period of delay such that antedating to May 22, 2022 was warranted, and even allowing a limited antedate to August 2023 would not produce sufficient insurable hours to qualify; therefore the application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division's dismissal of the applicant's appeal was reasonable because the General Division properly found misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act: the applicant knew or ought to have known IKEA's customer conduct expectations, had been warned, and willfully contravened the policy by directing a customer to 'shut up'; the factual findings were not perverse or capricious and the applicant's health and harassment claims did not render the decision unreasonable.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division reasonably concluded the General Division erred: incarceration or house arrest alone does not establish misconduct for EI purposes absent evidence that the claimant's underlying conduct was wilful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach wilfulness; the Commission failed to meet its burden to prove such conduct, therefore the Attorney General's application for judicial review is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of an EI debt write-off refusal, holding the Commission reasonably found the regulatory conditions precedent were not met.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a refusal to write off an EI sickness-benefits overpayment, holding the statutory write-off provisions did not apply.
The application for extension of time is refused because the General Division decision was communicated Feb 27, 2026 with a 30-day appeal period, the applicant filed on April 16, 2026 after that period and after contacting the Tribunal only on April 2, 2026, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to justify the delay.
Source excerpt
The General Division correctly applied s.36: claimant lost or could not resume his substitute teaching positions at the named school boards because of labour disputes; his union membership and lack of regular employment elsewhere meant he was participating/interested in the dispute and remained disentitled to EI benefits as established by binding precedent (Schoen and related authorities).
Source excerpt
The General Division correctly applied the legal test for voluntary leaving under s.29(c): on the evidence before it the Claimant had reasonable alternatives (including returning to work where employer indicated at least 30 hours/week and past weeks showed 35–60 hours), did not demonstrate he had no reasonable alternative to leaving, and therefore did not have just cause; the disqualification from benefits as of April 2, 2023 stands.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division intervened because the General Division made reviewable errors of fact and law; where documentary evidence showed the claimant continued to perform accounting duties (cheque issuance and deposits) there was no seven‑day interruption and those benefit periods were cancelled (Dec 16, 2018; Dec 20, 2019; Dec 26, 2021); where there was no evidence of services in the critical weeks, earnings stopped and the claims stand (Dec 20, 2020; Dec 25, 2022; Dec 20, 2023). The Commission lawfully replaced monetary penalties with warnings and the Tribunal will not interfere with that disc…
Source excerpt
Explore more
