Employee Not Disqualified From EI Benefits Due to Job Loss

Citation: IG v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  30 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (740909) dated July 7, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 14, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: January 14, 2026 File number: GE-25-3562 On this page Decision Overview Matters I have to consider first Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) hasn’t proven the Appellant lost his job because of misconduct (in other words, because he did something that caused him to lose his job). This means the Appellant isn’t disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. Footnote 1 Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant filed a claim for regular EI benefits on May 4, 2025, and established a claim on April 27, 2025. [ 4 ] The Appellant lost his job with “X” on May 14, 2025. The Appellant’s employer (D. H.) said the Appellant quit his job. However, the Appellant says he was let go because his driver’s licence was suspended and he couldn’t drive the company truck on routes. [ 5 ] The Commission initially determined the Appellant didn’t have just cause for leaving his job and disqualified him from receiving benefits. The Appellant appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Division which decided the Appellant was dismissed and lost his employment because of his misconduct. The Appellant was then granted leave to appeal the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. [ 6 ] In their representations to the Appeal Division, the Commission now submitted the Appellant’s licence was suspended due to his own misconduct because he failed to pay outstanding fines. The Commission also says the Appellant’s own actions caused him to breach a specific provision of his employment contract (AD3-1 to AD3-5). [ 7 ] So, the Commission decided the Appellant lost his job because of misconduct. Because of this, the Commission decided the Appellant was disqualified from receiving EI benefits. Matters I have to consider first Appeal Division decision [ 8 ] On December 18, 2025, the Appeal Division issued a decision and found the Appellant was dismissed for losing his licence. Specifically, the Appeal Division member explained that the loss of the Appellant’s licence was a direct consequence of his failure to pay his traffic ticket fines. [ 9 ] The Appeal Division member returned the matter to the General Division to decide if the Appellant’s failure to pay his fines was willful. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, I scheduled a teleconference hearing to allow the Appellant to be heard on this matter. The Commission did not attend the hearing on January 14, 2026. Issue [ 11 ] Did the Appellant lose his job because of misconduct? Analysis [ 12 ] To answer the question of whether the Appellant lost his job because of misconduct, I have to decide two things. First, I have to determine why the Appellant lost his job. Then, I have to determine whether the law considers that reason to be misconduct. Why did the Appellant lose his job? [ 13 ] I find the Appellant lost his job because his driver’s licence was suspended and he couldn’t operate the employer’s truck to run routes. [ 14 ] I recognize the Appellant’s employer (D. H.) told the Commission the Appellant quit his job. However, the Appellant says he was let go on May14, 2025, for not having a valid driver’s licence and “never quit.” I accept the Appellant’s testimony that he never quit his job because his statements were consistent, forthright, and plausible. [ 15 ] As mentioned, I find the Appellant lost his job because his driver’s licence was suspended and he couldn’t drive the employer’s company truck on routes. Is the reason for the Appellant’s dismissal misconduct under the law? [ 16 ] The reason for the Appellant’s dismissal isn’t misconduct under the law. [ 17 ] To be misconduct under the law, the conduct has to be wilful. This means that the conduct was conscious, deliberate, or intentional. Footnote 2 Misconduct also includes conduct that is so reckless that it is almost wilful. Footnote 3 The Appellant doesn’t have to have wrongful intent (in other words, he doesn’t have to mean to be doing something wrong) for his behaviour to be misconduct under the law. Footnote 4 [ 18 ] There is misconduct if the Appellant knew or should have known that his conduct could get in the way of carrying out his duties toward his employer and that there was a real possibility of being let go because of that. Footnote 5 [ 19 ] The Commission has to prove the Appellant lost his job because of misconduct. The Commission has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that it has to show that it is more likely than not that the Appellant lost his job because of misconduct. Footnote 6 [ 20 ] The Commission says there was misconduct because the Appellant failed to pay outstanding fines and his driver’s licence was suspended. The Commission further says the Appellant’s own actions caused him to breach a specific provision of his employment contract. [ 21 ] The Appellant says there was no misconduct because he paid a substantial portion of his outstanding fines in early 2025 and his licence had already been re-instated when he accepted a job with the employer on May 11, 2025. He further says he couldn’t pay the balance of his fines in early 2025 owing to financial challenges. He also says there was no wilfulness on his part. [ 22 ] I find the Commission hasn’t proven there was misconduct for the following reasons: [ 23 ] First: The Commission hasn’t considered that the Appellant paid a large amount of his outstanding fines in early 2025 and his driver’s licence had been re-instated at that point. I recognize the Commission submitted the Appellant’s failure to pay his outstanding fines caused him to breach a specific provision of his employment contract. However, the Appellant paid a substantial amount of his outstanding fines in early 2025 and wasn’t able to pay the balance owing to his financial challenges. In short, I’m not persuaded the Appellant acted wilfully in this situation particularly considering his license was re-instated when he paid a substantial portion of his fines in early 2025. [ 24 ] Second: I accept as credible the Appellant’s testimony that when he paid a large portion of his fines in early 2025 (and his licence was re-instated) he didn’t think he would receive a call on May 14, 2025, that his licence was suspended again. I accept the Appellant’s testimony on this matter because his statements were consistent, forthright, detailed, and plausible. Additional Submissions from the Commission [ 25 ] I realize the Commission submitted that by losing his license because of his wilful acts, the Appellant breached an express duty in the contract of employment that directly led to the loss of employment. However, the Appellant did have his licence re-instated by paying a substantial portion of his fines in early 2025. Under the circumstances, I’m unable to conclude the Appellant acted wilfully when he couldn’t pay the balance of his fines owing to financial hardship. [ 26 ] I further accept the Appellant’s testimony that his driver’s licence was valid when he accepted the job with “X” on May 11, 2025. I further accept the Appellant’s testimony that he wished to earn enough money from his new employment to pay the rest of his fine which he figured was between $600.00 to $1,200.00. Unfortunately for the Appellant he received a call from “[NAME]” on May 14, 2025, that his driver’s licence had been suspended again. So, did the Appellant lose his job because of misconduct? [ 27 ] Based on my findings above, I find the Appellant didn’t lose his job because of misconduct. Conclusion [ 28 ] The Commission hasn’t proven the Appellant lost his job because of misconduct. Because of this, the Appellant isn’t disqualified from receiving EI benefits. [ 29 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act says that Appellants who lose their job because of misconduct are disqualified from receiving benefits. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2007  FCA  36. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 [NAME] v Her [NAME] the Queen , A-402-96. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See Attorney General of Canada v [NAME] , A-352-94. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2007  FCA  36. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See Minister of Employment and Immigration v [NAME] , A-369-88. Return to footnote 6