Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant (Claimant) lost her job because she did not comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy (Policy). The employer did not grant her an exemption. The Claimant then applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

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

[4] The General Division found that the Claimant lost her job following her refusal to follow the employer’s Policy. The employer did not grant her an exemption. It found that the Claimant knew that the employer was likely to dismiss her in these circumstances. The General Division concluded that the Claimant lost her job because of misconduct.

[5] The Claimant seeks leave to appeal of the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. She submits that the Commission did not investigate on the other unvaccinated employee who could not get an exemption and still works for the company. The Claimant submits that she has the right to equal protection under the law. She submits that she has the constitutional right to refuse any medical procedure. She puts forward that doctors are terrified to grant exemptions by fear of losing their licences.

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

[7] I am refusing 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. The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way.
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. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.
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 Commission did not investigate on the other unvaccinated employee who could not get an exemption and still works for the company. The Claimant submits that she has the right to equal protection under the law. She submits that she has the constitutional right to refuse any medical procedure. She puts forward that doctors are terrified to grant exemptions by fear of losing their licences.

[13] The General Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate the Commission’s conduct in the treatment of the Claimant’s application for benefits.  The role of the General Division is to consider the evidence presented to it by both parties, to determine the facts relevant to the particular legal issue before it, and to articulate, in its written decision, its own independent decision with respect thereto.

[14] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant lost her job because of 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 dismissing the Claimant in such a way that her dismissal was unjustified, but rather of deciding whether the Claimant was guilty of misconduct and whether this misconduct led to her dismissal.^{Footnote 1}

[17] The General Division determined that the Claimant lost her job because she refused to be vaccinated in accordance with the employer’s Policy. She had been informed of the employer’s Policy and was given time to comply. She was not granted an exemption. The Claimant refused intentionally; this refusal was wilful. This was the direct cause of her dismissal. The General Division found that the Claimant knew that her refusal to comply with the Policy could lead to her dismissal.

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

[19] 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}

[20] The question of whether the employer should have accepted her medical exemption, or whether the employer discriminated against her, or whether the Policy violated her constitutional rights, is a matter for another forum. This Tribunal is not the appropriate forum through which the Claimant can obtain the remedy that she is seeking.^{Footnote 3}

[21] In the recent Paradis case, the Claimant was refused EI benefits because of his misconduct. He argued that the employer’s policy violated his rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

[22] The Federal Court found it was a matter for another forum. The Court also stated that there are available remedies for a claimant to sanction the behaviour of an employer other than transferring the costs of that behaviour to the Employment Insurance Program.

[23] The preponderant evidence before the General Division shows that the Claimant 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 dismissed from work. As stated by the General Division, the wording of the Claimant’s signed package does not change the reason for her dismissal.

[24] I see no reviewable error made by the General Division when it decided 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}

[25] I am fully aware that the Claimant may seek relief before another forum, if a violation is established.^{Footnote 5} 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 misconduct.

[26] 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.

[27] 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

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