Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dale Arnold was disqualified from Employment Insurance benefits after knowingly refusing to comply with Purolator's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, constituting misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the EI Act.

• Misconduct under the EI Act does not require wrongful intent; conscious, deliberate, or intentional non-compliance is sufficient to meet the threshold.

• The Social Security Tribunal's mandate is limited to assessing entitlement to benefits and does not extend to evaluating the reasonableness or legality of employer policies.

• Arguments regarding human rights, constitutional rights, accommodation, or violations of the collective bargaining agreement were deemed outside the jurisdiction of the SST and must be pursued in another forum.

• Arnold's claim that the General Division's use of template language was procedurally unfair was rejected, as he was given a full hearing and opportunity to present his case.

• The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review without costs, finding the Appeal Division's decision reasonable and consistent with established jurisprudence.

Background and facts of the case

Dale Arnold was an employee of Purolator who was suspended from his position after he knowingly failed to comply with the company's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy (Vaccination Policy). The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST) found that his non-compliance constituted misconduct pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (EI Act). As a result, Mr. Arnold was disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.

Proceedings before the Social Security Tribunal

Mr. Arnold's case was first decided by the General Division of the SST, which issued its decision on June 8, 2023 (GE-23-740). The General Division found that Mr. Arnold had knowingly failed to comply with Purolator's Vaccination Policy and concluded that his conduct constituted misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act. Mr. Arnold then appealed to the Appeal Division of the SST, which issued its decision on January 9, 2024 (AD-23-694), dismissing his appeal. The Appeal Division relied on established Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, including Canada (Attorney General) v. Bellavance, 2005 FCA 87 and Canada (Attorney General) v. Gagnon, 2002 FCA 460, in affirming that Mr. Arnold's deliberate violation of the Vaccination Policy constituted misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act.

The Appeal Division's key observations

The Appeal Division made several important observations in its decision. It noted that misconduct for purposes of the EI Act does not imply that the conduct in question was the result of wrongful intent; it is sufficient that the misconduct be conscious, deliberate, or intentional. The General Division's role was to assess whether Mr. Arnold was guilty of misconduct and whether that misconduct led to his dismissal. The Appeal Division further clarified that it was not for the General Division to focus on the conduct of the employer or to consider whether the Vaccination Policy was reasonable or whether the imposition of the Vaccination Policy violated the employment law relationship, because those concerns fall outside of EI law. Any question of accommodation, violation by Purolator of the law or the collective bargaining agreement in imposing the Vaccination Policy, or any violation of Mr. Arnold's human or constitutional rights, was a question for another forum.

Arnold's arguments on judicial review

Mr. Arnold, representing himself before the Federal Court of Appeal, maintained his argument that both the Vaccination Policy and Purolator's conduct in imposing and enforcing the Policy were unlawful and must be addressed. In his view, to do otherwise undermines the rule of law. He also asserted that the General Division's use of template language was procedurally unfair.

The Federal Court of Appeal's ruling

The Federal Court of Appeal, composed of Justices Locke, Leblanc, and Walker, dismissed Mr. Arnold's application for judicial review. Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the Court found that the Appeal Division's conclusions were supported by the evidentiary record, respected the statutory constraints of the EI Act, and met the Vavilov threshold for justification. The Court emphasized that the decision was consistent with the jurisprudence of the Court applying the test for misconduct for purposes of subsection 30(1) to a knowing failure to comply with an employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy, citing numerous recent cases including Lance v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 41; Cecchetto v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 102; Sullivan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 7; and Zagol v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 40. The Court noted that Mr. Arnold had not convinced it that his case should be distinguished from this jurisprudence or that the jurisprudence was manifestly wrong so as to permit the Court to depart from it. Regarding the procedural fairness argument, the Court found no unfairness in the General Division's use of template language, noting that the General Division held a hearing, listened to Mr. Arnold's arguments, and issued a detailed decision based on the evidence. It was clear that Mr. Arnold had full opportunity to present his case and that the General Division listened to and understood his arguments. The fact that certain of the same paragraphs used by the General Division appear in other decisions did not create unfairness or raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. The application was dismissed without costs, with the Attorney General of Canada being the successful party. No specific monetary award was at issue in this case, as the dispute concerned eligibility for Employment Insurance benefits rather than a damages claim.