Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] The Applicant (Claimant) is a medical technologist. He worked in a medical laboratory for the employer since 2010. In September 2021, the employer implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy (policy). The employer later dismissed the Claimant because he did not comply with their policy. The Claimant then applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Respondent (Commission) determined that the Claimant was dismissed from his job because of misconduct so it was not able to pay him benefits. After an unsuccessful reconsideration, the Claimant appealed to the General Division.

[4] The General Division found that the Claimant was dismissed following his refusal to follow the employer’s policy. It found that the Claimant knew that the employer was likely to dismiss him in these circumstances. The General Division concluded that the Claimant was dismissed from his job because of misconduct.

[5] The Claimant seeks leave to appeal of the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. He submits that no law supports the employer’s decision of firing him from his job. He submits that mandates and policies are not law.

[6] I proceeded to send a letter to the Claimant requesting that he explain in detail his grounds of appeal in accordance with the law.^{Footnote 1} In his reply, the Claimant essentially reiterated his position before the General Division.^{Footnote 2}

[7] I must decide whether the Claimant has raised some reviewable error of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed.

[8] I refuse leave to appeal because the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[9] Does the Claimant raise some reviewable error of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed?

Analysis

[10] Section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. These reviewable errors are that:

1. 1. The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way.
2. 2. The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide.
3. 3. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.
4. 4. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision.

[11] An application for leave to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that must be met on the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the leave to appeal stage, the Claimant does not have to prove his case but must establish that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error. In other words, that there is arguably some reviewable error upon which the appeal might succeed.

[12] Therefore, before I can grant leave to appeal, I need to be satisfied that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the above-mentioned grounds of appeal and that at least one of the reasons has a reasonable chance of success.

Does the Claimant raise some reviewable error of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed?

[13] The Claimant submits that the employer had no legal right to impose the policy because it was a violation of his constitutional rights, and an invasion of his privacy. The Claimant puts forward that the policy discriminated against him based on his medical information. He puts forward that if he is not entitled to benefits, the Commission should pay him back all the premiums he has paid.

[14] The Claimant is a medical technologist. He worked in a medical laboratory for the employer since 2010. In September 2021, the employer implemented a policy. The employer later dismissed the Claimant because he did not comply with their policy.

[15] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant was dismissed from his job because of his misconduct.

[16] The notion of misconduct does not imply that it is necessary that the breach of conduct be the result of wrongful intent; it is sufficient that the misconduct be conscious, deliberate, or intentional. In other words, in order to constitute misconduct, the act complained of must have been wilful or at least of such a careless or negligent nature that one could say the employee wilfully disregarded the effects their actions would have on their performance.

[17] The General Division’s role is not to judge the severity of the employer’s penalty or to determine whether the employer was guilty of misconduct by suspending the Claimant in such a way that her suspension was unjustified, but rather of deciding whether the Claimant was guilty of misconduct and whether this misconduct led to his dismissal.^{Footnote 3}

[18] Based on the evidence, the General Division determined that the Claimant was dismissed because he refused to be vaccinated in accordance with the employer’s policy in response to the pandemic. He had been informed of the employer’s policy put in place to protect the health and safety of all its workers in the workplace and was given time to comply. The Claimant refused intentionally; this refusal was wilful. This was the direct cause of his dismissal. He knew or should have known that her refusal to comply with the policy could lead to a dismissal.

[19] The General Division concluded from the preponderant evidence that the Claimant’s behavior constituted misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act).

[20] It is well established that a deliberate violation of the employer’s policy is considered misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act.^{Footnote 4}

[21] The Claimant argues that the employer’s policy was illegal, discriminated against him based on his medical information, and violated his constitutional rights.

[22] I see no reviewable error made by the General Division when it stated that it had to decide the issue of misconduct solely within the parameters set out by the Federal Court of Appeal, which has defined misconduct under the EI Act.^{Footnote 5}

[23] I am fully aware that the Claimant may seek relief under another law, if a violation is established.^{Footnote 6} This does not change the fact that under the EI Act, the Commission has proven on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant was dismissed because of his misconduct.

[24] I also see no reviewable error made by the General Division when it determined that The EI insurance plan, like any other insurance plan, does not provide automatic entitlement to EI benefits to a person who has contributed to the plan and who has become unemployed. A claimant must meet the qualification criteria to receive EI benefits. In this case, the Claimant lost his job because of his misconduct, so he does not meet the qualification criteria to receive EI benefits.

[25] In his application for leave to appeal, the Claimant has not identified any reviewable errors such as jurisdiction or any failure by the General Division to observe a principle of natural justice. He has not identified errors in law nor identified any erroneous findings of fact, which the General Division may have made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, in coming to its decision.

[26] After reviewing the docket of appeal, the decision of the General Division and considering the arguments of the Claimant in support of his request for leave to appeal, I find that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[27] Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal will not proceed.