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
Leave to appeal refused because the claimant failed to identify an arguable reviewable error; the General Division reasonably found on the evidence that the claimant left the bus contrary to clear employer policy and prior warnings and therefore lost his job for misconduct, so the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
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
Because the appellant repeatedly engaged in unsafe conduct after receiving training, warnings and a suspension, his behaviour was wilful or sufficiently reckless; on the balance of probabilities the Commission proved the dismissal was for misconduct and the appellant is disqualified from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
The General Division failed to consider material evidence and misdirected its analysis by focusing on employer conduct and accommodation; the record, including prior warnings, suspension and the claimant’s admissions, shows deliberate or nearly wilful breaches of safety rules (seatbelt and load‑height violations) that led to dismissal and therefore constitute misconduct under the EI Act.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found harassment and unsafe conditions but concluded the appellant had reasonable alternatives (approach owner, involve MOL, take leave of absence, or search for other employment) and therefore failed to prove he had no reasonable alternative to quitting as required by s.29(c); appeal dismissed and appellant disqualified from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
Although the tribunal accepted that working conditions presented a safety risk, the appellant did not show he had no reasonable alternative to quitting because he could have searched for other work beforehand and could have reported the danger to appropriate authorities; therefore he lacked just cause and is disqualified from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities the appellant's deliberate decision to wear a non-fire-resistant hoodie on May 23, 2023 after multiple prior safety infractions and having signed acknowledgements of PPE and discipline policies constituted wilful misconduct within the meaning of s.30 of the EI Act; therefore the appellant is disqualified from EI benefits and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Although appellant experienced harassment and unsafe conditions, he had reasonable alternatives before quitting (reporting to the owner or to Alberta Occupational Health and Safety and had not shown immediate, unmanageable fear given he remained employed for 15 months); he failed to exhaust those alternatives, so he did not have just cause under s.29(c) and is disqualified under s.30.
Source excerpt
The Commission failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was dismissed for wilful misconduct: employer evidence was contradictory and the employer did not attend the hearing, the appellant was effectively suspended and had a reasonable fear about machine safety, and inability to attend the scheduled meeting did not amount to a wilful refusal to cooperate; therefore the dismissal was not shown to be misconduct and the appellant is entitled to EI benefits.
Source excerpt
The Commission proved on a balance of probabilities that the claimant deliberately smoked underground in breach of the employer's no-smoking policy; the claimant's contradictory statements undermined his credibility; deliberate breach of a clear safety rule constitutes wilful or reckless misconduct and disqualifies him from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
