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

Pagano v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an SST Appeal Division decision denying EI benefits after non-compliance with Air Canada’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

• Misconduct
• Just cause
• Reasonable decision review
• Vaccination policy
• Religious accommodation
• Procedural fairness

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

BG v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Permission to appeal is refused because the claimant failed to establish an arguable reviewable error; the General Division reasonably concluded that the claimant’s failure to attend work due to incarceration breached an essential condition of employment and amounted to misconduct/voluntary leaving without just cause.

Source excerpt

• Voluntary leaving
• Misconduct
• Incarceration
• Permission to appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Just cause

Read case analysis

AA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was denied because the Claimant failed to show an arguable legal, procedural or important factual error: the General Division considered the evidence but employer-related safety evidence was not legally relevant to the misconduct test under the EI Act, so there is no reasonable chance of success on appeal.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Leave to appeal
• Procedural fairness
• Evidentiary relevance

Read case analysis

X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and PN

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the Employer failed to identify any arguable reviewable error and did not demonstrate a direct interest—the General Division properly exercised its discretion in refusing to add the Employer as a party.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Added party
• Direct interest
• Misconduct
• Grounds of appeal
• Natural justice

Read case analysis

LB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division applied the correct legal test, considered and weighed the evidence, and reasonably found the Applicant knew of the employer's return-to-work policy and the risk of dismissal and therefore willfully failed to return; there is no arguable important error of fact or other reviewable error and no reasonable chance of success on appeal, so leave to appeal is refused.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Leave to appeal
• Error of fact
• Procedural fairness
• Accommodation

Read case analysis

AF v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Because the claimant obtained approval from the plant manager, who had authority to approve leaves, and the Commission failed to rebut the claimant's unchallenged evidence, the claimant could not have known he was breaching a duty; therefore the dismissal was not for misconduct and EI disqualification does not apply.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Leave of absence
• Authority to approve leave
• Burden of proof
• Error of fact

Read case analysis

GA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division allowed the appeal because the General Division accepted voluntariness without properly addressing the claimant's disputed evidence and relied on unsupported presumptions about the criminal justice system; that reliance gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and breached natural justice, requiring the matter be returned to the General Division for reconsideration by a different member.

Source excerpt

• Voluntary leaving
• Just cause
• Misconduct
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Natural justice
• Use of presumptions

Read case analysis

MF v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicant failed to show an arguable case of a reviewable error: the General Division provided adequate procedural fairness, correctly identified and applied the law on misconduct and burden of proof, and its factual findings on credibility and misconduct were supported by the record and not perverse or capricious.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Procedural fairness
• Burden of proof
• Benefit of the doubt
• Permission to appeal

Read case analysis