A Jewish organization employee who refused to return to full-time office work citing security concerns after the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, has lost her final appeal for employment insurance benefits.
The Social Security Tribunal of Canada’s Appeal Division refused to grant C.L. permission to appeal a decision that found her dismissal constituted misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act. The ruling means she remains disqualified from receiving regular EI benefits.
Security concerns not legally relevant
C.L. worked at a Jewish organization and raised concerns about workplace safety following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023. She argued her employer failed to provide adequate security measures, including armed security, to protect staff against potential antisemitic attacks.
However, tribunal member Glenn Betteridge ruled that the employer’s security measures were not legally relevant to determining misconduct under employment insurance law.
“The only question is whether the employee was aware or ought to have been aware of the employer’s policy, the consequences of failing to comply with that policy and engaged in conduct which, objectively, could lead to a loss of employment,” the decision states, citing Federal Court of Appeal precedent.
The tribunal found C.L. deliberately chose not to comply with her employer’s requirement to return to full-time office work and asked for a severance package, leading to her dismissal.
Bias allegations rejected
C.L. also alleged the tribunal process was antisemitic and that decision-makers failed to understand her legitimate security concerns. She argued the General Division ignored relevant evidence about workplace threats and incidents.
The Appeal Division rejected these allegations, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness in the original hearing.
“I didn’t read or hear anything that would suggest to a reasonably informed person the member was antisemitic or otherwise biased or prejudiced against the Claimant,” Betteridge wrote.
Legal options remain
The tribunal noted that while employment insurance benefits are reserved for involuntary unemployment, dismissed employees can pursue other legal avenues to challenge their employer’s conduct, including wrongful dismissal lawsuits, human rights complaints, or health and safety complaints.
The decision reinforces that employment insurance law focuses on employee conduct rather than employer behaviour when determining benefit eligibility, even when workplace safety concerns are involved.
The case reflects broader workplace challenges as organizations balance return-to-office policies with employee concerns about safety and security in an increasingly polarized environment.
For more information, see CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2025 SST 174 (CanLII).
