A cashier who refused to return from vacation in Poland when her employer demanded has been denied employment insurance benefits after a tribunal ruled she committed misconduct by missing three consecutive shifts.
M.B. worked as a cashier for four years before being terminated for job abandonment in August 2024. The Social Security Tribunal of Canada’s General Division found she deliberately chose to stay on vacation rather than clarify conflicting information about her return-to-work date.
The leave request dispute
M.B. had requested 30 days of leave to visit Poland for six weeks total, including two weeks of paid vacation. Her employer approved only 15 days of unpaid leave, meaning she would be off work for 29 days total and expected back July 26, 2024.
The employee initially rejected this decision, writing “I don’t accept this decision” on her leave request form and continuing to negotiate for the full 30 days she wanted.
On June 17, 2024, the employer’s HR representative J.L. sent an email that contained conflicting information. The first paragraph confirmed the original decision: “You have been approved for a two-week vacation and a fifteen day leave of absence for a total consecutive time away from the workplace for one month and one day.”
However, the second paragraph stated: “Your leave of absence ends on August 8th, 2024. You will be expected to return to work as of August 9th for all scheduled shifts.”
Employee’s calculated gamble
M.B. and her husband testified they noticed the discrepancy immediately and began “celebrating” because they interpreted the August dates as meaning she had received the 30-day leave she wanted.
Critically, M.B. chose not to seek clarification about the conflicting dates before leaving for Poland on June 26, 2024. She called J.L. on June 24 to thank her for the email but did not mention the inconsistency or ask which paragraph was correct.
The tribunal found this decision was deliberate: “The Appellant consciously and deliberately decided not to do so. And this was because she wanted to take advantage of the fact the second paragraph appeared to be in her favour.”
The reckoning from Poland
While in Poland, M.B. learned on July 18 that she was scheduled to work starting July 25. She contacted J.L. to ask why, referencing the August 8 end date for her leave.
J.L. immediately responded that there was “a typo with the dates” and reminded M.B. she was “well aware she’d been approved for a 15-day leave of absence ending on July 25, 2024” and was “expected to return to work as of July 26, 2024 for all scheduled shifts.”
M.B.’s husband replied: “You made mistake you fix it.”
J.L. clarified there had been “a human error” with the dates but emphasized the email clearly stated M.B. was approved for only 15 days of leave. J.L. warned that “failure to attend three consecutive shifts starting from July 26, 2024 will result in job abandonment.”
Decision to remain overseas
Despite having seven days to return to Canada and multiple opportunities to change her flight, M.B. chose to stay in Poland until her planned return date of August 8, 2024.
She maintained in a July 24 email to J.L. that the June 17 message represented “the final decision” on her leave and she would not return until August 9.
The employer terminated M.B. for job abandonment on August 19, 2024, after she missed multiple consecutive shifts.
Tribunal’s misconduct finding
The tribunal rejected M.B.’s argument that her dismissal was retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint she had filed against a manager in June 2024.
Instead, it found her conduct met the legal test for willful misconduct in two ways.
First, M.B. “deliberately disregarded the conflicting statements in J.L.’s E-mail on June 17th in order to take the 30-day leave of absence she wanted.” The tribunal noted she had eight days between receiving the confusing email and leaving Canada to seek clarification but chose not to.
Second, even after being explicitly told on July 18 that she was expected back July 26, M.B. “chose not to return to Canada until August 8th.” The tribunal found she could have changed her flight “with no problem” as she had testified.
Reckless disregard for employment
The tribunal emphasized that M.B. knew the consequences of missing three consecutive shifts, as this had been communicated to her repeatedly. She had also been terminated once before by the same employer in 2022 for failing to return from extended leave after her mother’s death.
“The Appellant carelessly and recklessly assumed that, since she was already in Poland on her vacation, the employer would understand how she could have misinterpreted the June 17th E-mail and allow her to take the full 30-day leave of absence she’d requested,” the decision stated.
The tribunal acknowledged M.B. was “upset by what she considers to be harsh consequences for a misunderstanding she says was caused by J.L.’s error” but noted it was not the tribunal’s role to determine if the employer acted reasonably.
“If a claimant loses their employment due to their own misconduct, the law says they are disqualified from receiving EI benefits,” the decision concluded.
M.B.’s appeal was dismissed, with her EI disqualification effective August 18, 2024.
For more information, see MB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2025 SST 468 (CanLII).
