Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review concerned denial of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits due to lack of availability for work.

• The appellant failed to demonstrate active job-seeking efforts during the relevant period.

• COVID-19 vaccination policy refusal led to job loss, affecting EI eligibility.

• Tribunal decisions upheld as reasonable under administrative law principles.

• Allegations of judicial bias and lack of tribunal independence were dismissed.

• Costs were awarded to the Attorney General following dismissal of the appeal.

Facts and outcome of the case

Neculai Otoman brought an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal challenging a decision by the Federal Court that had previously rejected his application for judicial review. His initial case related to a ruling by the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (General and Appeal Divisions) that found him ineligible for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits for the period from December 20, 2021, to June 24, 2022. The core issue was whether he had demonstrated availability for work during this time, a requirement under section 18(1)(a) and subsection 50(8) of the Employment Insurance Act, as well as regulations 9.001 and 9.002 of the Employment Insurance Regulations.

The facts revealed that Otoman lost his job as a seaman because he refused to comply with his employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Instead of seeking alternative employment, he waited for the federal government to lift an emergency order mandating vaccinations in the transportation sector. The Appeal Division found that Otoman had restricted his availability for work and had not actively searched for a new job, thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria for EI.

At the Federal Court level, Justice St-Louis applied the standard of reasonableness and concluded that the Tribunal's decision was logical, transparent, and justified. On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice Heckman, writing for the panel, confirmed that the Federal Court correctly applied the reasonableness standard as outlined in the Vavilov decision. The Court found no error in how the Tribunal had evaluated the evidence or in its conclusion that Otoman’s job search efforts were insufficient.

Otoman also argued that the Tribunal and the Federal Court were biased because their members were appointed by the federal executive. He questioned their independence and impartiality, and further challenged the legality of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate itself. These arguments were dismissed as irrelevant or without merit. The Court cited constitutional and jurisprudential principles affirming judicial independence and the role of the Attorney General in defending federal decisions under judicial review.

In conclusion, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Otoman had not shown any basis to overturn the earlier rulings. The Court also granted costs in favor of the Attorney General of Canada, as he had succeeded and had requested them.