Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) has proven that the Claimant was suspended from his job because of misconduct (in other words, because he did something that caused him to be suspended). For this reason, he is disentitled to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

Overview

[3] The Claimant was suspended from his job.^{Footnote 1} The Claimant’s employer says that he was suspended because he went against its vaccination policy: he didn’t get vaccinated.

[4] Even though the Claimant doesn’t dispute that this happened, he says that going against his employer’s vaccination policy isn’t misconduct.

[5] The Commission accepted the employer’s reason for the suspension. It decided that the Claimant was suspended because of misconduct.^{Footnote 2} Because of this, the Commission decided that the Claimant is disentitled from receiving EI benefits.

Matter I have to consider first

The employer is not a party to the appeal

[6] The Tribunal identified the Claimant’s former employer as a potential added party to the Claimant’s appeal. The Tribunal sent the employer a letter asking if they had a direct interest in the appeal and wanted to be added as a party. The employer did not respond by the date of this decision. As there is nothing in the file that indicates the employer has a direct interest in the appeal, I have decided not to add them as a party to this appeal.

Issue

[7] Was the Claimant suspended from his job because of misconduct?

Analysis

[8] The law says that you can’t get EI benefits if you lose your job because of misconduct. This applies when the employer has let you go or suspended you.^{Footnote 3}

[9] To answer the question of whether the Claimant was suspended from his job because of misconduct, I have to decide two things. First, I have to determine why the Claimant was suspended. Then, I have to determine whether the law considers that reason to be misconduct.

Why was the Claimant suspended?

[10] Both parties agree that the Claimant was suspended from his job because he went against the employer’s vaccination policy. I see no evidence to contradict this, so I accept it as fact.

Is the reason for his suspension misconduct under the law?

[11] The reason for the Claimant’s suspension is misconduct under the law.

[12] The Employment Insurance Act (Act) doesn’t say what misconduct means. But case law (decisions from courts and tribunals) shows us how to determine whether the Claimant’s dismissal is misconduct under the Act. It sets out the legal test for misconduct—the questions and criteria to consider when examining the issue of misconduct.

[13] Case law says that, to be misconduct, the conduct has to be wilful. This means that the conduct was conscious, deliberate, or intentional.^{Footnote 4} Misconduct also includes conduct that is so reckless that it is almost wilful.^{Footnote 5} The Claimant doesn’t have to have wrongful intent (in other words, he doesn’t have to mean to be doing something wrong) for his behaviour to be misconduct under the law.^{Footnote 6}

[14] There is misconduct if the Claimant knew or should have known that his conduct could get in the way of carrying out his duties toward his employer and that there was a real possibility of being let go because of that.^{Footnote 7}

[15] The Commission has to prove that the Claimant lost his job because of misconduct.^{Footnote 8}

[16] I can consider only one thing: whether what the Claimant did or failed to do is misconduct under the Act. I can’t make my decision based on other laws.^{Footnote 9} I can’t decide whether a claimant was constructively or wrongfully dismissed under employment law. I can’t decide whether an employer discriminated against a claimant or should have accommodate them under human rights law.^{Footnote 10} And I can’t decide whether an employer breached a claimant’s privacy or other rights.

[17] There is a case from the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) called Canada (Attorney General) v McNamara.^{Footnote 11} Mr. McNamara was dismissed from his job under his employer’s drug testing policy. He argued that he should not have been dismissed because the drug test was not justified under the circumstances, which included that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was unable to work in a safe manner because of the use of drugs, and he should have been covered under the last test he’d taken.  Basically, Mr. McNamara argued that he should get EI benefits because his employer’s actions surrounding his dismissal were not right.  

[18] In response to Mr. McNamara’s arguments, the FCA stated that it has constantly said that the question in misconduct cases is “not to determine whether the dismissal of an employee was wrongful or not, but rather to decide whether the act or omission of the employee amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Act.” The Court went on to note that the focus when interpreting and applying the Act is “clearly not on the behaviour of the employer, but rather on the behaviour of the employee.” It pointed out that there are other remedies available to employees who have been wrongfully dismissed, “remedies which sanction the behaviour of an employer other than transferring the costs of that behaviour to the Canadian taxpayers” through EI benefits.

[19] A more recent decision that follows the McNamara case is Paradis v Canada (Attorney General).^{Footnote 12} Like Mr. McNamara, Mr. Paradis was dismissed after failing a drug test. Mr. Paradis argued that he was wrongfully dismissed, the test results showed that he was not impaired at work, and the employer should have accommodated him in accordance with its own policies and provincial human rights legislation. The Federal Court relied on the McNamara case and said that the conduct of the employer is not a relevant consideration when deciding misconduct under the Act.^{Footnote 13}

[20] Another similar case from the FCA is Mishibinijima v Canada (Attorney General).^{Footnote 14} Mr. Mishibinijima lost his job for reasons related to an alcohol dependence.  He argued that, because alcohol dependence has been recognized as a disability, his employer was obligated to provide an accommodation. The Court again said that the focus is on what the employee did or did not do, and the fact that the employer did not accommodate its employee is not a relevant consideration.^{Footnote 15}

[21] These cases are not about COVID vaccination policies. But, the principles in those cases are still relevant. My role is not to look at the employer’s conduct or policies and determine whether they were right in dismissing the Claimant. Instead, I have to focus on what the Claimant did or did not do and whether that amounts to misconduct under the Act. 

What the Commission and the Claimant say

[22] The Commission and the Claimant agree on the key facts in this case. The key facts are the facts the Commission must prove to show the Claimant’s conduct is misconduct within the meaning of the Act.

[23] The Commission says that there was misconduct because:

• the employer had a vaccination policy and communicated that policy to the Claimant
• the employer’s policy required the Claimant to provide proof of his vaccination or get an approved exemption.
• the Claimant knew what he had to do under the policy
• he also knew that his employer could suspend him under the policy if he didn’t give proof of vaccination or get an exemption by the deadline
• he applied for exemptions on religious and human rights grounds, but the employer denied these requests
• he made a personal choice not to get vaccinated by the deadline
• his employer suspended him because he didn’t comply with its vaccination policy

[24] The Claimant says that there was no misconduct because:

• the employer’s vaccination policy went against the law and his human rights
• the employer unreasonably denied his exemption requests
• he worked from home, so his vaccination status did not affect his ability to do his job

[25] The evidence in this appeal is consistent and straightforward. The Claimant knew what he had to do under the vaccination policy and what would happen if he didn’t follow it. The employer told the Claimant about the requirements and the consequences of not following them.

[26] The employer has a right to manage their daily operations, which includes the authority to develop and implement policies at the workplace. When the employer implemented this policy as a requirement for all of its employees, this policy became an express condition of the Claimant’s employment.^{Footnote 16} There is no evidence that the Claimant was exempt from the policy because he worked from home.

[27] The Federal Court of Appeal has said that the Tribunal does not have to determine whether an employer’s policy was reasonable or a claimant’s dismissal was justified. The Tribunal has to determine whether the Claimant’s conduct amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Act.^{Footnote 17}

[28] There are a number of laws that protect an individual’s rights, such as the right to privacy or the right to equality (non-discrimination). The Charter is one of these laws. There is also the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and a number of provincial laws that protect rights and freedoms.

[29] These laws are enforced by different courts and tribunals. 

[30] This Tribunal is allowed to consider whether a provision of the Employment Insurance Act or its regulations (or related legislation) infringes rights that are guaranteed to a claimant by the Charter. 

[31] But this Tribunal is not allowed to consider whether an action taken by an employer violates a claimant’s Charter fundamental rights. This is beyond my jurisdiction. Nor is the Tribunal allowed to make rulings based on the Canadian Bill of Rights or the Canadian Human Rights Act or any of the provincial laws that protect rights and freedoms.

[32] The Claimant may have other recourse to pursue his claims that the employer’s policy violated his rights. But, these matters must be addressed by the correct court or tribunal. They are not within my jurisdiction to decide.

[33] I find that the Commission has proven that there was misconduct because it has shown:

• the employer had a vaccination policy that said employees had to provide proof of being vaccinated against COVID-19
• the Claimant knew about the vaccination policy and what the employer expected of its employees in terms of being vaccinated
• he knew that the employer could suspend him if he didn’t get vaccinated before the deadline
• he applied for exemptions from the policy, which the employer refused
• he consciously, deliberately, and intentionally made a personal decision not to get vaccinated by the deadline
• he was suspended from his job because he didn’t comply with the employer’s vaccination policy

So, was the Claimant suspended because of misconduct?

[34] Based on my findings above, I find that the Claimant was suspended from his job because of misconduct.

[35] This is because the Claimant’s actions led to his suspension. He acted deliberately. He knew that failing to get vaccinated was likely to cause him to be suspended.

Conclusion

[36] The Commission has proven that the Claimant was suspended from his job because of misconduct. Because of this, the Claimant is disqualified from receiving EI benefits.

[37] This means that the appeal is dismissed.