Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant was denied employment insurance due to a finding of misconduct after failing to comply with her employer’s vaccination policy.

• Her request for a religious exemption from vaccination was rejected, and she was subsequently dismissed from employment.

• The Social Security Tribunal found her ineligible for EI benefits under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

• The Appeal Division concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal based on errors in law, fact, or natural justice.

• The Federal Court affirmed the Appeal Division's decision as reasonable and consistent with established legal principles.

• The Court of Appeal upheld this reasoning, finding no central or significant legal flaw and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Facts of the Case
Rebecca Abdo lost her employment after refusing to comply with her employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. She had applied for a religious exemption, but her request was denied. Following her dismissal, she applied for employment insurance benefits, which were denied on the basis that she was dismissed for misconduct under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST) found that her refusal constituted misconduct.

Tribunal and Federal Court Findings
The SST’s Appeal Division refused leave to appeal, finding no arguable case that the General Division had committed a reviewable error in fact, law, or procedural fairness. The Federal Court reviewed this refusal and upheld the Appeal Division's decision as reasonable. The Court found that the legal test for misconduct was properly applied, emphasizing the objective standard that assesses whether the claimant knew or should have known the consequences of their conduct.

Argument on Religious Belief and Voluntariness
Abdo argued that her conduct was not voluntary because it stemmed from her religious beliefs, which she claimed were immutable and therefore involuntary under the law. This argument was dismissed. The Court reiterated that misconduct under subsection 30(1) does not require that the conduct be free of personal conviction. Rather, it is sufficient if the claimant acted consciously and with an awareness of the likely consequences, including dismissal.

Court of Appeal's Conclusion
The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the lower court’s analysis and found no error in its application of the reasonableness standard. The Court noted that the Appeal Division’s decision was coherent, justified, and consistent with established jurisprudence. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Attorney General of Canada.