Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant (Claimant) was suspended from his job because he did not comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy (Policy). He was refused an exemption based on religious beliefs. The Claimant then applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Respondent (Commission) determined that the Claimant was suspended 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 suspended from his job following his refusal to follow the employer’s Policy once his request for exemption based on his religious beliefs was denied. It found that the Claimant knew that the employer was likely to suspend him in these circumstances. The General Division concluded that the Claimant was suspended 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 the General Division refused to exercise its jurisdiction when it said that it did not have the authority to protect his human and constitutional rights. The Claimant submits that he exercised his rights in accordance with his faith/religion.

[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 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.

[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 General Division refused to exercise its jurisdiction when it said that it did not have the authority to protect his human and constitutional rights. The Claimant submits that he exercised his rights in accordance with his faith/religion.

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

[14] 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.

[15] 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 his suspension was unjustified, but rather of deciding whether the Claimant was guilty of misconduct and whether this misconduct led to his suspension.^{Footnote 1}

[16] Based on the evidence, the General Division determined that the Claimant was suspended from his job because he refused to follow the Policy. He had been informed of the employer’s Policy and was given time to comply.  He was not granted an exemption for religious beliefs. The Claimant refused intentionally; this refusal was wilful. This was the direct cause of his suspension. The General Division found that the Claimant knew that his refusal to comply with the Policy could lead to his suspension.

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

[18] 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}

[19] It is not really in dispute that an employer has an obligation to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health and safety of its employees in their workplace. In the present case, the employer followed the recommendations of the Toronto Medical Officer of Health to implement its Policy to protect the health of all employees and the public during the pandemic. The Policy was in effect when the Claimant was suspended.

[20] The Claimant submits that the General Division refused to exercise its jurisdiction on the issues of whether the employer failed to accommodate him and whether the employer’s policy violated his rights considering that he had proven that his request for an exemption was based on his religious beliefs.

[21] The question of whether the employer violated the Claimant’s human and constitutional rights, or whether the employer should have accepted his request for an exemption based on his religious beliefs, 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}

[22] The Federal Court has rendered a recent decision in Cecchetto regarding misconduct and a claimant’s refusal to follow the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

[23] The Federal Court confirmed the Appeal Division’s decision that, by law, this Tribunal is not permitted to address these questions. The Court agreed that by making a personal and deliberate choice not to follow the employer’s vaccination policy, the claimant had breached his duties owed to the employer and had lost his job because of misconduct under the EI Act.^{Footnote 4} The Court stated that there exist other ways in which the claimant’s claims can properly advance under the legal system.

[24] In the previous Paradis case, the claimant was refused EI benefits because of misconduct. He argued that there was no misconduct because the employer’s policy violated his rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act. The Federal Court found it was a matter for another forum.

[25] The Federal Court 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.

[26] In the Mishibinijima case, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that the employer’s duty to accommodate is irrelevant in deciding EI misconduct cases.

[27] 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 him being suspended from work.

[28] 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 5}

[29] 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 misconduct.

[30] 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.

[31] 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

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