Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Home Featured Federal Court of Appeal upholds decision denying EI benefits to unvaccinated employee

Federal Court of Appeal upholds decision denying EI benefits to unvaccinated employee

by HR Law Canada

HR Law Canada has covered quite a few rulings over the last year dealing with workers who were denied employment insurance (EI) benefits because they lost their jobs due to “misconduct” by refusing to get vaccinated for COVID-19. Most of those rulings have come out of the Social Security Tribunal General and Appeal Divisions.

One of those decisions was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal — and it confirmed the rulings by the lower tribunals to deny EI benefits to the worker for not adhering to his employer’s vaccination policy.

The applicant argued that the vaccination policy was not only unreasonable, as it did not offer alternatives to vaccination, but also that it was not part of his initial employment contract, introduced after he was hired. He contended that his non-compliance did not constitute a breach of contract or misconduct.

The Appeal Division evaluated previous decisions related to the definition of “misconduct” and maintained that the reasonableness of the employer’s policy was irrelevant to the misconduct determination.

An employee who deliberately breaches an explicit policy set by his employer may be found to have committed misconduct under the Act, the Appeal Division noted, reinforcing its stance with precedents such as Nelson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 222.

Justice Heckman, writing for the court, supported the Appeal Division’s rationale.

“In our view, the Appeal Division’s decision is reasonable. It is supported by the evidentiary record and, as this Court has observed in recent decisions involving similar circumstances,” said the Court.

“The Appeal Division reasonably found that, in determining whether the applicant committed misconduct under the Act, it cannot assess the reasonableness of the employer’s vaccination policy that led to his dismissal. We note that the applicant can raise that issue by way of other avenues, such as a wrongful dismissal action or a human rights complaint,” it said.

Furthermore, the court addressed claims of procedural unfairness raised by the applicant, who felt blindsided by the legal principles outlined at his hearing. However, the court found that the hearing was conducted fairly and without bias.

No costs were awarded.

For more information, see Palozzi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 81 (CanLII).

You may also like