Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether Neil Henriques was disentitled from employment insurance benefits because he lost his employment by reason of misconduct.
• The General Division found that, in IKEA’s customer support call centre, he was repeatedly rude, aggressive, and disrespectful with clients.
• A central issue was whether he knew or should have known that his conduct could interfere with his duties and create a real possibility of dismissal.
• Another question was whether his dismissal was caused by that misconduct.
• His disagreement with IKEA’s approach to customer service did not alter his obligation to comply with the employer’s policy.
• On review, the Appeal Division and the Court were limited in their ability to interfere with the General Division’s factual findings.

Facts of the case

Neil Henriques sought judicial review of a decision of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada – Appeal Division, which had dismissed his appeal from a General Division decision. The General Division had concluded that, following his dismissal from employment with IKEA Canada, he was not entitled to employment insurance benefits because he had been dismissed for misconduct. The General Division found that, in his work in IKEA’s customer support call centre, he was repeatedly rude, aggressive, and disrespectful with clients.

Mr. Henriques argued that he was assertive, not rude. He also argued that IKEA’s approach to customer service complaints was ill-advised because it encouraged customers to be rude and verbally abusive and exposed him to harassment and psychological trauma. He further contended that he suffered from several physical ailments and that he had been given insufficient notice that his behaviour could result in dismissal because previous warnings about his behaviour had expired.

Policy terms and legal framework

The decision addressed section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act, which provides that a claimant is not entitled to employment insurance benefits if he or she was dismissed because of his or her own misconduct. The General Division also noted that there is misconduct if the claimant knew or should have known that the conduct could get in the way of carrying out duties toward the employer and that there was a real possibility of being let go because of that. The Court further stated that an application for employment insurance benefits is not the proper venue to question employer policies and the validity of employment dismissals.

The workplace rule at issue was IKEA’s policy on dealing with customers. The General Division found that Mr. Henriques knew or ought to have known of that policy, knew of the potential consequences of not complying with it, and willfully went against the policy by telling a customer to “shut up.”

General Division and Appeal Division decisions

The General Division concluded that Mr. Henriques had engaged in misconduct and that he was dismissed because of that misconduct. It therefore found that he was not entitled to employment insurance benefits.

The Appeal Division dismissed his appeal. With respect to factual conclusions, the Court noted that the Appeal Division could intervene only where the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

Federal Court of Appeal outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court held that Mr. Henriques’ disagreement with aspects of IKEA’s policy on dealing with customers did not alter his obligation to comply with the policy. It also held that the General Division and the Appeal Division considered the evidence and that Mr. Henriques had not shown that any of it was ignored or that any findings of fact were made in a perverse or capricious manner. The Court further held that the fact that earlier warnings might have been old enough to be considered expired did not change the conclusion that he was aware of IKEA’s expectations, aware of the potential consequences of failing to comply, and willfully acted in contravention of those expectations. Finally, although the Court expressed sympathy for the physical ailments he cited, it found that they did not affect the reasonableness of the Appeal Division’s decision. The successful party was the respondent, and no amount was ordered in its favour because the application was dismissed with no award of costs, making the total amount awarded nil.