Canada Case Law

Canada Employment Insurance Commission v SM

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The claimant was effectively suspended from employment as of February 16, 2022 because his DUI conviction and resulting licence condition (requirement to drive only Interlock-equipped vehicles) prevented him from performing essential job duties; the suspension resulted from the claimant's willful misconduct (voluntary consumption of alcohol leading to impaired driving), therefore he is disentitled to regular EI benefits from and including February 16, 2022.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Loss of employment
• Suspension
• Appeal - error of law
• Driver's licence/dui

Read case analysis

PT v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appeal is allowed in part: the appellant was disentitled to EI while suspended beginning December 13, 2021 because he knew failure to disclose vaccination status could lead to suspension; however he was not disqualified for losing his job on April 1, 2022 because the employer's policy did not indicate loss of employment and he did not know or should not have known a contract non-renewal was a real possibility; the application cannot be antedated because the appellant did not prove good cause for the entire delay, so his claim is effective July 10, 2022.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Vaccination policy
• Suspension
• Loss of employment
• Antedating
• Good cause for delay

Read case analysis

Shih v. Shih

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted an interim without prejudice suspension of child support, finding a prima facie case for variation, hardship, urgency, and no ongoing unclean hands.

• Interim relief
• Variation of support
• Clean hands doctrine
• Parenting time impact
• Loss of employment
• Urgency

Read case analysis

W. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the Appellant had prior verbal approval from his supervisor to leave briefly; therefore the leaving was not wilful misconduct and the Commission failed to prove a causal link between alleged misconduct and loss of employment, so disqualification under s.30 did not apply.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disqualification under s.30
• Loss of employment
• Authorization to leave work

Read case analysis

X v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the claimant committed the acts, they were wilful and deliberate, he knew or should have known the conduct could lead to dismissal given written policy reinforcement and prior warnings, and the acts were the real cause of immediate termination; therefore the claimant lost his employment because of misconduct.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disqualification from benefits
• Loss of employment
• Causal link

Read case analysis

Uni-Tech Windows Mfrs Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Employer failed to meet the burden of proof that the employee's actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of section 30 because evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, there was no proof of prior warnings or a pattern of harassment, no clear evidence the employee threatened the coworker or that he knew his actions would lead to dismissal; therefore no disqualification under the Act.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct disqualification
• Loss of employment
• Evidence and credibility
• Posting and notice of policy

Read case analysis

A. D. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Commission and employer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's act was wilful or so reckless as to approach wilfulness and that it was the operative cause of dismissal; the appellant's urgent medical condition and the requirement to remain near his truck made the act involuntary and not misconduct within the meaning of ss.29-30 of the Employment Insurance Act, so disqualification under s.30 does not apply.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disqualification
• Loss of employment
• Onus of proof
• Causation
• Medical condition

Read case analysis

M. P. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division erred in law by failing to consider the totality of relevant facts (appellant's fear, threats, vulnerability and the co-worker's violent criminal record) and therefore the evidence did not support a finding that the appellant's failure to report was conscious, deliberate misconduct; appeal allowed.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Loss of employment
• Eligibility for ei benefits
• Standard of review
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

9091-8558 Québec. Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Tribunal accepted employer evidence and corroborating witness testimony that claimant attended a work meeting in an inebriated and disruptive state, had a substantial history of disciplinary incidents and warnings, and therefore acted with such recklessness or wilfulness that dismissal was a real possibility; misconduct was established and was the real reason for dismissal under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disqualification from benefits
• Loss of employment
• Dismissal

Read case analysis

M. G. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division found the majority Board of Referees' factual findings were clearly unreasonable: employer evidence was contradictory and affidavits unreliable, the employer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant punched coworkers' time cards or that any proven act caused her dismissal; therefore the appellant did not lose employment for misconduct under ss.29 and 30 and the Board's decision was rescinded.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Loss of employment
• Burden of proof
• Standard of review
• Natural justice
• Record of employment

Read case analysis