Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought judicial review of a Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division decision denying her Employment Insurance benefits.

• Tribunal found misconduct due to the applicant’s refusal to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination policy, despite being aware of the policy and its consequences.

• The General Division had initially ruled in her favor, focusing on the employment contract and fairness of the policy.

• Appeal Division reversed the decision, applying the proper legal test for misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.

• The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal Division’s decision, emphasizing that personal views on policy fairness are irrelevant in misconduct determinations.

• Allegations of bias on the part of the Appeal Division were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Facts of the Case

Annette Lance, the applicant, worked at Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance Hospital in Ontario. Following a directive issued by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the hospital implemented a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Ms. Lance refused to comply with the policy and did not request an exemption. As a result, she was suspended and ultimately dismissed from her job.

During her suspension, she applied for Employment Insurance benefits. The Commission denied her application, citing misconduct under sections 29–31 of the Employment Insurance Act. The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal overturned this decision, reasoning that there was no explicit requirement in her employment contract or applicable legislation mandating vaccination, and that the dismissal was a matter of employer discretion.

Procedural History and Arguments

The Commission appealed the General Division’s ruling, and the Appeal Division granted leave to appeal. The applicant raised concerns about impartiality, arguing that the member had presided over similar cases and showed bias. Nonetheless, a three-member panel was convened, and the Appeal Division reversed the General Division’s decision. It found that the proper legal test for misconduct had not been applied and that Ms. Lance had voluntarily engaged in conduct (refusing vaccination) knowing it could lead to termination.

Ms. Lance then applied for judicial review, again raising concerns about bias and contesting the fairness of the policy and the tribunal process.

Legal Analysis and Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the case and upheld the Appeal Division’s ruling. The court clarified that entitlement to Employment Insurance benefits is governed by the Employment Insurance Act, not by the fairness or legality of the employer’s policy. The key legal issue is whether the employee engaged in misconduct—defined as willful conduct that impairs job performance—and whether the employee was aware of the employer’s expectations and the consequences of non-compliance.

In this case, the court found that Ms. Lance had clear notice of the policy and knowingly chose not to comply. Therefore, her loss of employment was considered voluntary and disqualified her from receiving benefits.

The court also dismissed the allegation of bias, finding no substantive evidence to support the claim.

Conclusion

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review and awarded costs against Ms. Lance. The decision reinforces that in Employment Insurance matters, the focus is on the employee’s conduct and knowledge of the consequences—not on whether an employer’s policy is viewed as fair or justifiable by the employee.