Canada Case Law

Henriques v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

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

• Misconduct
• Standard of review
• Evidence and findings of fact
• Notice and warnings
• Workplace harassment and health issues

Read case analysis

Dr. Aref Tabarsi Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Vice Chair's interpretation that 'court' and 'action' in s.311 WCA include private arbitrations and privately appointed arbitrators is patently unreasonable because it impermissibly expands WCAT's exclusive jurisdiction beyond the statute and legislative intent; however, WCAT's finding that the petitioner's arbitration claim includes elements of personal injury (mental distress) is supported by a tenable line of analysis and is not patently unreasonable; accordingly the Decision is quashed to the extent it treats private arbitrations as 'court actions' and the matter is remitted to WCAT t…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of administrative tribunal
• Statutory interpretation of 'court' and 'action'
• Standard of review (patent unreasonableness)
• S. 311 certification under wca
• Privative clause
• Personal injury vs contract damages

Read case analysis

Canada Employment Insurance Commission v MM

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division erred as a matter of law by failing to analyze whether the claimant should have known dismissal was a real possibility; on substitution the Appeal Division found misconduct because the claimant knew the employer's safety absolutes, acknowledged the violation, and objectively should have known dismissal was possible, thus disqualifying him from EI benefits.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Safety absolutes
• Disqualification from benefits
• Knowledge standard for dismissal
• Remedy by substitution

Read case analysis

Ramachandran v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the Board's interpretation as reasonable and entitled to deference under Vavilov: 'governed by performance pay' means having predominant or determinative control, and because Appendix A prescribes lockstep pay progression for LP-00 to LP-03 and in-range performance increases for LP-01 to LP-03 are small, the LP-02 salary is not governed by performance pay; therefore the Board correctly dismissed the grievance and the application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Collective agreement interpretation
• Performance pay
• Salary placement
• Standard of review
• Deference to specialized tribunal

Read case analysis

Westjet v. T.H.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court concluded the Board’s finding that the respondent did not engage in sexual harassment was unreasonable because the Board made flatly contradictory findings about whether the comments were sexual in nature and departed from established law treating repeated, intrusive sexual comments as sexual harassment; the Decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a CIRB adjudicator for redetermination.

Source excerpt

• Sexual harassment
• Wrongful dismissal/termination for cause
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Remedy/remittal

Read case analysis

X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and LF

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

On the de novo review the Tribunal found the Claimant voluntarily left but established just cause because medical evidence showed her employment was a danger to her health and, given the circumstances and attempted accommodations, she had no reasonable alternative to quitting at that time; therefore the Claimant is not disqualified from regular EI benefits and the Employer's appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Voluntary leaving
• Just cause
• Medical leave
• Danger to health
• Reconsideration and appeal

Read case analysis

X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and BR

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The employer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimant's conduct was wilful or so reckless as to be virtually wilful: evidence was conflicting about whether the claimant was fully under the load, the claimant corrected his conduct after a warning, there was no immediate sanction or clear indication dismissal would follow, and the Commission properly found insufficient evidence to establish misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disqualification from benefits
• Dismissal for cause
• Reconsideration

Read case analysis

X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and SW

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Permission to appeal is refused because the employer failed to identify any arguable reviewable error by the General Division; the General Division's finding that the record and law did not support a conclusion of wilful misconduct was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and the appeal therefore has no reasonable chance of success.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Dismissal
• Benefit disqualification
• Leave to appeal
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Janik v. Ironworkers Local 97 Apprenticeship and Training Society

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an interlocutory injunction application over a union’s “non-dispatchable” designation, holding the dispute fell within the Labour Relations Board’s exclusive jurisdiction.

• Interlocutory injunction
• Labour relations board jurisdiction
• Duty of fair representation
• Privacy statutes (pipa, foippa, privacy act)
• Dispatch/non-dispatchable designation
• Interlocutory-injunction

Read case analysis

LM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

By informing his on‑call employer of unapproved reduced availability for a six‑week vacation, the claimant took the initiative that led to termination; he had reasonable alternatives (delay travel, request leave in advance), therefore he did not have just cause and is disqualified from EI benefits effective October 20, 2024.

Source excerpt

• Voluntary leaving
• Just cause
• Availability for work
• Vacation leave
• Benefit disqualification

Read case analysis