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 her job because she did not comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy (Policy). She was not granted an exemption. The Claimant then applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Respondent (Commission) determined that the Claimant was suspended from 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 was suspended from her job following her refusal to follow the employer’s Policy. She was not granted an exemption for religious beliefs. It found that the Claimant knew that the employer was likely to suspend her in these circumstances. The General Division concluded that the Claimant was suspended from her job because of misconduct.

[5] The Claimant seeks leave to appeal of the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. The Claimant submits that she cannot be discriminated based on religion. She submits that she rightfully applied for a religious exemption and was unreasonably denied by her employer. The Claimant submits that according to the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles (Digest), if imposed by an employer, a leave is considered a layoff. She submits that the employer violated her employment agreement and 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. 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 she cannot be discriminated based on religion. She submits that she rightfully applied for a religious exemption and was unreasonably denied by her employer. She submits that the employer violated her employment agreement and her constitutional rights. The Claimant further submits that according to the Digest, if imposed by an employer, a leave is considered a layoff.

[13] It is important that I reiterate that the Digest is an interpretive guide that is not legally binding on the Tribunal. It simply reflects the opinion of the administrator who acts under the law. That opinion does not necessarily correspond to the law.^{Footnote 1}   

[14] 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.

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

[16] 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.

[17] 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 2}

[18] Based on the evidence, the General Division determined that the Claimant was suspended because she refused to follow the Policy. She had been informed of the employer’s Policy and was given time to comply. She was not granted an exemption for religious beliefs. The Claimant refused intentionally; this refusal was wilful. This was the direct cause of her suspension.

[19] 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 3} It is also considered misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act not to observe a policy duly approved by a government or an industry.^{Footnote 4}

[22] 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 implemented its Policy to protect the health of all employees during the pandemic. The Policy was in effect when the Claimant was suspended.^{Footnote 5}

[23] It was not for the General Division to decide questions about the vaccine’s effectiveness or the reasonableness of the employer’s Policy.

[24] It was also not necessary for the General Division to decide whether the employer could put the Claimant on “unpaid leave” under her collective agreement for refusing to follow their Policy. It is well established that an employer’s discipline procedure is irrelevant to determine misconduct under the EI Act.^{Footnote 6}

[25] The question of whether the employer should have accommodated the Claimant by allowing her to work from home, or whether the employer should have granted her a religious exemption, or whether the employer’s Policy violated her employment rights, or whether the Policy violated her human and 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 7}

[26] 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. The claimant submitted that refusing to abide by a vaccine policy unilaterally imposed by an employer is not misconduct. He put forward that it was not proven that the vaccine was safe and efficient. The claimant felt discriminated against because of his personal medical choice. The claimant submitted that he has the right to control his own bodily integrity and that his rights were violated under Canadian and international law.^{Footnote 8}

[27] 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 9} The Court stated that there exist other ways in which the claimant’s claims can properly advance under the legal system.

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

[29] 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.

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

[31] As stated previously, the General Division’s role is not 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.

[32] 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 suspended from work.

[33] 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 10}

[34] I am fully aware that the Claimant may seek relief before another forum, if a violation is established.^{Footnote 11} 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.

[35] 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

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