Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant (Claimant) was put on an unpaid leave of absence from work because she did not comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy (policy). The Claimant then applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Respondent (Commission) determined that the Claimant took a voluntary leave from her job without just cause. Upon reconsideration, the Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the General Division.

[4] The General Division found that the employer imposed a mandatory unpaid leave of absence because the Claimant did not comply with their policy. It found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Claimant voluntarily chose to take a leave of absence. The General Division determined that the Claimant was suspended following her refusal to follow the employer’s policy. It found that the Claimant knew that the employer was likely to suspend her in these circumstances. The General Division found that the non-compliance with the policy was the cause of her suspension. It concluded that the Claimant was suspended from her job because of misconduct.

[5] The Claimant is requesting leave to appeal of the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. She submits that the Tribunal allowed benefits to a man after he refused to receive the shots because he had health concerns. She submits that she has the same exact concerns. She puts forward that the refusal to grant her benefits is illegal and in violation of her constitutional rights.

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

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

Issue

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

Analysis

[9] 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.

[10] 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 her 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.

[11] 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?

[12] The Claimant submits that the Tribunal allowed benefits to a man after he refused to receive the shots because he had health concerns about his high blood pressure and reports of some individuals getting blood clots after taking the shots. She submits that she has the same exact concerns. She puts forward that the refusal to grant her benefits is illegal and in violation of her constitutional rights.

[13] The evidence shows that the Claimant worked in a golf club. It is open year round, in summer for golf and winter for curling. She worked in the main part of the club as a receptionist and performed administrative tasks. The Claimant was put on an unpaid leave of absence as of September 24, 2021. The employer implemented a policy for the protection of the health and safety of all its members from the hazard of COVID-19. The employer did not approve the Claimant’s requests for an exemption. The Claimant refused to comply with the policy. The employer suspended her.

[14] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant was suspended because of her misconduct.

[15] 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.

[16] 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 her suspension.^{Footnote 1}

[17] Based on the evidence before it, the General Division determined that she did not take a voluntary leave from work. It found that the Claimant was suspended from work. This conclusion is supported by the evidence.

[18] The Claimant received an email from the employer advising her that vaccination is mandatory. She had meetings with the employer about the vaccination requirement. The Claimant did not want to provide proof of her vaccination but wanted to continue working for the employer. She was put on an unpaid leave of absence for not following the policy. This evidence clearly demonstrates that the Claimant is not the one who initiated the work interruption.

[19] The General Division found that the Claimant was suspended (prevented from working) because she refused to follow the employer’s policy. The employer had denied her requests for an exemption. The Claimant had been informed of the employer’s policy and was given time to comply. The Claimant refused intentionally; this refusal was wilful. This was the direct cause of her suspension. The General Division found that the Claimant knew that her refusal to comply with the policy could lead to her suspension.

[20] The General Division concluded from the preponderant evidence that the Claimant’s behavior constituted misconduct.

[21] It is well established that a deliberate violation of the employer’s policy is considered misconduct within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act).^{Footnote 2}

[22] The Claimant submitted to the General Division that the employer failed to accommodate her, discriminated against her and violated her constitutional rights. This question is a matter for another forum. This Tribunal is not the appropriate forum through which the Claimant can obtain the remedy that he is seeking.^{Footnote 3}

[23] As stated previously, the question submitted to the General Division was not whether the employer was guilty of misconduct by suspending the Claimant such that this would constitute an unjust suspension, but whether the Claimant was guilty of misconduct under the EI Act and whether this misconduct resulted in the Claimant being suspended from work.

[24] The preponderant evidence before the General Division shows that the Claimant, after being refused an exemption, made a personal and deliberate choice not to follow the employer’s policy in response to the exceptional circumstances created by the pandemic and this resulted in her being suspended from work.

[25] 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 4}

[26] The Claimant submits that the Tribunal allowed benefits to a man after he refused to receive the shot because he had health concerns about his high blood pressure and reports of some individuals getting blood clots after taking the shots. She submits that she has the same exact concerns.^{Footnote 5}

[27] I note that in that case, the General Division concluded that the claimant did not lose his job because of misconduct because the employer did not give him enough time to comply with the employer’s verbal policy or to request an exemption. The claimant was also not informed that he would be dismissed from his job if he did not follow the policy. The facts in the present case are different and do not support such a conclusion.

[28] I am fully aware that the Claimant may seek relief before another forum, 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 suspended because of her misconduct.

[29] In her 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. She 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 on the issue of misconduct.

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

Conclusion

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