Misconduct

I. The Legislation

A claimant who is fired from his or her job because of misconduct is disqualified from receiving employment insurance benefits.

Sections 30 Employment Insurance Act, 31 Employment Insurance Act, 33 Employment Insurance Act, 34 Employment Insurance Act and 51  Employment Insurance Act Employment Insurance Act

II. What is Misconduct

Whether a claimant's actions are misconduct depends on the circumstances of each case. In order for there to be misconduct, it is sufficient that the act or omission complained of by the employer was conscious, deliberate or intentional on the claimant's part. Misconduct means that the claimant consciously disregarded the effects that the conduct would have on job performance.

Gauthier v. Canada (A.G.), A-6-98 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, November 10, 1998 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Bedell, (1985) 60 N.R. 116 (F.C.A.) A-1716-83 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Brissette, [1994] 1 F.C. 684 (F.C.A.) A-1342-92 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Tucker, [1986] 2 F.C. 329 (F.C.A.) A-381-85 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Gault v. Canada, A-927-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, February 4, 1998 (F.C.A.)
McKay-Eden v. Canada (A.G.) (1997), 214 N.R. 156 (F.C.A.) A-402-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Secours (1995), 179 N.R. 132 (F.C.A.) A-352-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

III. Proving There Was Misconduct

It is up to either the Commission or the employer to prove that there was misconduct by showing that the claimant should not have acted as he or she did. It is not enought just to show that the employer considered the claimant's conduct to be misconduct. It doesn't matter if the employer's opinion is that the claimant was fired for misconduct. A finding of misconduct can only be made on the basis of clear evidence. The Board must assess the evidence and come to its own decision.

Gauthier v. Canada (A.G.), A-6-98 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, November 10, 1998 (F.C.A.)
Meunier v. C.E.I.C.A-130-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal (1996), 208 N.R. 377 (F.C.A.)
M.E.I. v. Bartone, A-369-88 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, January 18, 1989 (F.C.A.)
Joseph v. C.E.I.C., A-636-85, Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal March 11, 1986 (F.C.A.)
Davlut v. Canada (A.G.) (1982), 46 N.R. 518 (F.C.A.) A-241-82 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Morris, A-291-98 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, April 15, 1999 (F.C.A.)
Guay v. Canada, A-1036-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal,v. C.E.I.C. (September 16, 1997) (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Langlois, A-94-95 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, February 21, 1996 (F.C.A.)
Fakhari v. Canada (A.G.) (1996), 197 N.R. 300 (F.C.A.) A-732-95 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Boulton (1996), 208 N.R. 63 (F.C.A.) A-45-96 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Choinière v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), A-471-95 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, May 28, 1996 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Secours (1995), 179 N.R. 132 (F.C.A.) A-352-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Summers, A-225-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, December 1, 1994 (F.C.A.)
Crichlow v. Canada (A.G.), A-562-97 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, September 21, 1998 (F.C.A.)

IV. Related Topics