Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal disagrees with the Claimant.

[2] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) has proven that the Claimant was suspended and then lost her job because of misconduct. In other words, she did something that caused her to be suspended and lose her job.

[3] This means that the Claimant is disentitled (because she was suspended) and then disqualified (because she lost her job) from receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.^{Footnote 1}

Overview

[4] The Claimant lost her job as a registered nurse. She worked as a nurse for over 25 years. She worked on the front lines during the COVID pandemic, until her employer suspended her.

[5] Her employer had a mandatory COVID vaccination policy. Her employer says that she was put on unpaid leave of absence and then let go because she didn’t prove she was vaccinated against COVID.^{Footnote 2} In other words, because she didn’t follow its COVID vaccination policy.

[6] The Claimant doesn’t dispute this. She hasn’t had any doses of a COVID vaccine.

[7] But she says refusing to get vaccinated against COVID and give her employer proof is not misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act). COVID vaccines are experimental and harmful. They are a DNA-altering substance and are potentially fatal. So, forcing people to get vaccinated against COVID is a crime against humanity and genocide. This means her employer unlawfully dismissed her. And according to a decree from the self-appointed Queen of the Kingdom of Canada, she is legally entitled to get $3,000 per month in EI benefits.

[8] The Commission accepted the employer’s reasons. It decided the Claimant was suspended and lost her job because of misconduct. So, the Commission disentitled her (for being suspended) and disqualified her (for losing her job) from receiving EI benefits.^{Footnote 3}

Issue

[9] Did the Claimant get suspended from her job and then lose her job because of misconduct?

[10] To answer this question, I have to decide two things.

• First, I have to decide why the Claimant was suspended from her job and why she lost her job.
• Second, I have to decide whether the law considers those reasons to be misconduct.

Analysis

The reason the Claimant was suspended and lost her job

[11] I accept the Claimant was suspended and then lost her job because she didn’t follow her employer’s COVID vaccination policy.

[12] The Claimant and the Commission agree this is the reason she was suspended and then lost her job.^{Footnote 4}

[13] And there is no evidence that goes against this.

The reason is misconduct under the EI Act

[14] I find that the reason for the Claimant’s suspension and her dismissal is misconduct under the law.

[15] I set out the reasons for my finding in the rest of this section.

Misconduct under the EI Act

[16] The law says that you can’t get EI benefits if you lose your job because of your own misconduct.

[17] This appeal is about two sections of the EI Act that both deal with misconduct. One is about being suspended from a job because of misconduct.^{Footnote 5} The other is about being dismissed from a job because of misconduct.^{Footnote 6}

[18] There is misconduct under the law if the Claimant knew or should have known:

• her conduct could get in the way of carrying out her duties to her employer; and
• there was a real possibility she could be suspended or dismissed because of that conduct.^{Footnote 7}

[19] The Claimant`s conduct has to be wilful. This means her conduct has to be conscious, deliberate, or intentional, or so reckless that it is almost wilful.^{Footnote 8} She doesn’t have to mean to do something wrong.^{Footnote 9}

[20] The Commission has to prove misconduct on a balance of probabilities. This means it has to show that it is more likely than not the Claimant was suspended and lost her job because of misconduct.

The Commission’s position and the Claimant’s position

[21] The Commission says that there was misconduct because the Claimant’s employer suspended and then dismissed her when she didn`t comply with its COVID vaccination policy.^{Footnote 10} She knew about the policy. She knew her employer could suspend or dismiss her if she didn't get vaccinated and give it proof. And she made a deliberate decision not to get vaccinated.

[22] The Claimant says that there was no misconduct. Her employer unlawfully dismissed her. COVID vaccines are experimental and harmful. They are DNA-altering substances and potentially fatal.^{Footnote 11} So, forcing people to get vaccinated against COVID is a crime against humanity and genocide.^{Footnote 12} And according to a decree from a self-appointed Queen of the Kingdom of Canada, she is legally entitled to get $3,000 per month in EI benefits.^{Footnote 13}

The Commission has shown there was misconduct

[23] The Commission and the Claimant agree on the essential facts. What the Claimant told the Commission and said at the hearing lines up with the evidence the Commission relied on to deny her EI benefits. Here are the essential facts.

[24] Her employer had a mandatory COVID vaccination policy.^{Footnote 14} That policy says:

• employees had a duty to get a first dose of a COVID vaccine, and to give the employer proof, by October 4, 2021
• employees who didn’t could be placed on unpaid leave of absence
• employees had to get a second dose of COVID vaccine, and give the employer proof, by November 4, 2021
• employees who didn’t could be placed on unpaid leave of absence
• employees with an approved medical exemption or human rights accommodation didn't have to get vaccinated

[25] The employer notified its employees about the policy by email in August 2021. And followed up with an email with more details on September 1, 2021.^{Footnote 15}

[26] The Claimant says she knew about the policy and the consequences of not following it.^{Footnote 16}

[27] Because the Claimant didn’t comply with its COVID vaccination policy, her employer placed her on unpaid leave of absence. The suspension letter says the leave is from October 4, 2021 to November 15, 2021.^{Footnote 17} And if she doesn’t give proof of COVID vaccination (or get an approved exemption) before November 15, 2021, her employer will not allow her to return to work and will give her another letter.

[28] Then her employer extended the final deadline to comply with the policy to January 17, 2022.

[29] The Claimant didn't get vaccinated against COVID. And she didn’t apply for a medical exemption or human rights accommodation.^{Footnote 18}

[30] Her employer met with her on January 20, 2022. It terminated her employment because she had not met the vaccination requirements in its policy.^{Footnote 19}

[31] After considering and reviewing all the documents and the Claimant’s testimony, I find that she:

• knew about the employer`s COVID vaccination policy and her duties under that policy
• knew the consequences of not following the policy
• consciously, deliberately, and intentionally didn’t get vaccinated against COVID
• was suspended and then dismissed by her employer because she didn’t follow its COVID vaccination policy

[32] I made these findings because this is what she told the Commission and what she testified to at the hearing. ^{Footnote 20} I have no reason to doubt what she said. This is also what the documents show. And there is no evidence that goes against this.

[33] So, I find that the Commission has shown that it is more likely than not the Claimant was suspended and dismissed for misconduct under the EI Act.

The Claimant’s arguments why it’s not misconduct

[34] The Claimant says refusing to get vaccinated against COVID and give her employer proof is not misconduct under the EI Act. So, the Commission should have paid EI benefits to her.

[35] She makes three arguments about this.

[36] First, she says she is legally entitled to get $3,000 per month in EI benefits under a decree from a self-appointed Queen of the Kingdom of Canada.

[37] I don’t agree with this argument. The so-called decree wasn’t passed by the Parliament of Canada. It has no legal force and doesn’t change the EI Act. Under that Act, she isn't entitled to benefits.

[38] Second, she says that her refusal to get vaccinated isn’t misconduct because her employer unlawfully dismissed her. COVID vaccines are an experimental DNA-altering substance and are potentially fatal. So, forcing people to get vaccinated against COVID is a crime against humanity and genocide.

[39] Third, at the hearing she argued that personal protective equipment (PPE) was good enough to prevent COVID transmission before the vaccines were available, so it should be good enough after.

[40] I can’t consider the Claimant’s second and third arguments. These arguments challenge the reasonableness and legality of her employer’s COVID vaccination policy and decisions under the policy. But the courts have said the Tribunal must focus on the claimant’s conduct under the misconduct sections of the EI Act, not the employer’s conduct. ^{Footnote 21}

[41] This means I can’t look into whether her employer’s decisions to suspend or dismiss her were legally justified. And I can’t ask whether suspension and termination were reasonable or appropriate penalties.

The Claimant was suspended and lost her job because of misconduct

[42] Based on my reasons above, I find that the Claimant was suspended from her job due to misconduct from October 4, 2021 until January 19, 2022. And I find that she lost her job due to misconduct effective January 20, 2022.

Conclusion

[43] The Commission has proven that the Claimant was suspended and then lost her job because of misconduct. Because of this, the Claimant is disentitled and then disqualified from receiving EI benefits.

[44] So, the appeal is dismissed.