Employer's Appeal for Permission Denied - Social Security Tribunal

[TRANSLATION] Citation: X  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission and GM , 2026  SST  20 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: [COMPANY] Respondent: [redacted] Added Party: G. M. Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 10, 2025 (GE-25-2088) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 15, 2026 File number: AD-25-799 On this page Decision Overview Issues I am not giving the Employer permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant, G. M., applied for Employment Insurance sickness benefits. Footnote 1 Her Record of Employment indicates that she was dismissed. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Employer, X, hadn’t shown that the Claimant lost her job because of her misconduct. Footnote 2 [ 3 ] The Employer requested a reconsideration. It wrote that the Claimant had been dismissed for creating a personal email address to which she transferred work emails. It also said that she had failed to return information belonging to it after she was given formal notice to do so. Footnote 3 The Commission maintained its decision. Footnote 4 [ 4 ] Then, the Employer appealed the decision to the General Division, which dismissed the appeal. Footnote 5 It decided that the Employer hadn’t proven that the Claimant had lost her job because of misconduct, which meant she was entitled to Employment Insurance benefits. Footnote 6 [ 5 ] The Employer is now asking for permission to appeal that decision. Permission to appeal is required for an appeal to be heard on the merits. Footnote 7 Issues [ 6 ] The issues are the following: (a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law? (b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made important errors of fact? I am not giving the Employer permission to appeal The legal test for giving permission to appeal [ 7 ] I have to give permission to appeal if the Employer shows that its appeal has a reasonable chance of success based on one of the errors that allow me to intervene. [ 8 ] The appeal has to involve one of the grounds of appeal in the law. So, I have to determine whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made one of the following errors: failed to follow the principles of procedural fairness; acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers; made an error of law; made an important error of fact. Footnote 8 [ 9 ] I have to refuse permission to appeal if I am satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Footnote 9 A reasonable chance of success means that the Employer could plead its case and possibly win. [ 10 ] Before issuing my decision, I looked at the [NAME] file and the General Division decision, and I listened attentively to the recording of the three hearings. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law [ 11 ] In its application for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision, the Employer alleged that the General Division made several errors of law. An error of law may occur if the wrong legal test is applied, or if part of a legal test wasn’t considered. There is no arguable case that the General Division misinterpreted the concept of misconduct [ 12 ] The Employer alleges that the General Division misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act . Footnote 10 It says the evidence was undisputed that the Claimant had remotely deleted or destroyed the Employer’s student data. [ 13 ] The Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division misinterpreted the concept of misconduct. What the Employer is actually disputing here is the application of the legal test for misconduct to the facts on file. It is clear from the Employer’s argument that it is dissatisfied with what came from applying the legal test for misconduct to the facts on file. But that doesn’t mean that there is an arguable case that an error of law was made. Rather, it is a question of mixed fact and law. Footnote 11 The Appeal Division doesn’t have the power to intervene on a question of mixed fact and law, when the well-established legal test is applied to the facts on file. Footnote 12 [ 14 ] The Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division misstated the legal test in its decision. The legal test for determining misconduct is well established. The General Division restated the legal test repeatedly confirmed in the case law. It explained that for there to be misconduct: the conduct has to be wilful; Footnote 13 the conduct has to be conscious, deliberate, or intentional; Footnote 14 wrongful intent isn’t required; Footnote 15 the Claimant knew or should have known that her conduct could get in the way of carrying out her duties toward her Employer and that there was a real possibility of being let go because of it. Footnote 16 [ 15 ] The General Division also said that misconduct also includes conduct that is so reckless that it is almost wilful. Footnote 17 It added that the Employer has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant lost her job because of misconduct. Footnote 18 At the hearing before the General Division, the Employer recognized that it had that burden. Footnote 19 So, the General Division restated the well-established legal test for determining misconduct, and applied it to the file. There is no arguable case that the General Division misapplied the case law of the Federal Court of Appeal on Employment Insurance [ 16 ] In its application to the Appeal Division, the Employer alleged that the General Division made an error of law by misapplying the case law. Footnote 20 It went on to say that the General Division hadn’t considered that the Claimant should have known that deleting its files was a serious action and that it was misconduct. [ 17 ] The Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division failed to follow the binding case law of the federal courts. In its application for permission to appeal, the Employer didn’t cite any Federal Court of Appeal decisions to support its argument. It didn’t explain which principle the General Division had misapplied in its decision. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an unintelligible decision [ 18 ] The Employer submits that paragraphs 28 and 29 of the General Division decision contradict paragraph 30. It says this means that the decision is unintelligible. Footnote 21 [ 19 ] There is no arguable case that those paragraphs contradict one another, as they deal with different subjects. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are about work emails being transferred to the Claimant’s personal account. The General Division said that wasn’t proven. Then, the General Division discussed the Claimant taking back her [NAME] account. Paragraph 30 is about a different subject. The Employer accused the Claimant of deleting files from her computer (workstation). The General Division found that she had deleted some, but it was reasonable in the circumstances. The fact that the General Division found that the Employer had proven that the Claimant deleted some files but hadn’t proven that she sent work emails to her personal account isn’t contradictory. These are distinct findings of fact. [ 20 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t properly explain its reasoning. The Employer accuses the General Division of not explaining how many deleted files were required for there to be misconduct. Footnote 22 But the General Division isn’t required to determine a specific number of files that should have been deleted for there to have been misconduct. The General Division’s conclusion that it agreed that the Claimant deleted some files but that it wasn’t misconduct is logical and supported by the evidence. The General Division stated that a number of the files moved to the recycle bin on the Claimant’s computer were empty. Footnote 23 Essentially, a number of them contained nothing (14 files containing 0KB) or were simply shortcuts. Footnote 24 [ 21 ] The General Division specified that it didn’t find it excessive that the Claimant deleted some files from her computer, given that she had to leave her workstation to move to another. Footnote 25 It wasn’t disputed that she was to move to a position in the College’s physical resources department after training her replacement. Footnote 26 Furthermore, the assistant [NAME] director testified that the Claimant’s replacement would be using the Claimant’s computer once she moved to her new position. Footnote 27 The General Division found that the number of deleted files could be explained by the fact that the Claimant wanted to eliminate the files that would no longer be useful in her new position. [ 22 ] So, the Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division’s findings aren’t justifiable, intelligible, and transparent. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law by failing to consider certain parts of the legal test for misconduct [ 23 ] The Employer accuses the General Division of failing to consider that the Claimant’s computer expertise meant she should have known that she could lose her job if she deleted its files. Footnote 28 It alleges that this expertise meant she knew how serious her actions were, and how they could negatively affect it. Footnote 29 I note that the alleged computer expertise appears mainly based on the fact that on her résumé, she indicated that she was proficient in Microsoft Office. Footnote 30 She also indicated that she was highly adaptable, able to quickly learn how to use new work software. The assistant [NAME] director testified that the Claimant had superior computer knowledge, as she knew how to handle emails and knew the school’s computer tools. Footnote 31 [ 24 ] But the General Division considered that argument at paragraph 26 of its decision. This means there is no arguable case that the General Division failed to consider that element in applying the legal test to determine whether there was misconduct. The General Division noted the Employer’s argument that the Claimant actually intended to harm it by deleting the files, considering her computer knowledge. The General Division considered that element, among others, in determining whether the Claimant should have known that her conduct could lead to her being dismissed. [ 25 ] The General Division explained that the Employer didn’t have a code of conduct for using external applications and that the Claimant used Employer-approved tools. Footnote 32 The General Division also found the Claimant’s explanations plausible, namely that she had deleted some files because she was leaving for another position with the same employer. Footnote 33 So, there is no arguable case that the Claimant ignored the Employer’s argument about the Claimant’s expertise. [ 26 ] In its application to the Appeal Division, the Employer said that the General Division didn’t consider the serious operational impact and reputational damage that the Claimant’s actions caused. Footnote 34 [ 27 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored the impact on the Employer because in its decision, it referred specifically to the actions the Employer had to take after dismissing the Claimant. The General Division considered that the Employer alleged difficulties and consequences due to the Claimant’s absence and its inability to locate the work to be done. Footnote 35 The General Division also considered that the Employer had to email students to rebuild a list of retake needs. Footnote 36 [ 28 ] The General Division considered the impact on the Employer in the context of its other findings of fact. By weighing the different pieces of evidence, the General Division decided that the Employer hadn’t proven that the Claimant had deleted protected data belonging to it. Footnote 37 The General Division also found that the Employer hadn’t proven that the Claimant had transferred all emails and documents belonging to it to her personal email. Footnote 38 [ 29 ] This means the General Division explicitly considered the impacts alleged by the Employer. But considering all the facts on file, in particular that the Employer had allowed the Claimant to use [NAME] and that it was the Employer that took over the Claimant’s lists in [NAME] and removed her access, and in the absence of a code of conduct or policy for using computer tools, it didn’t consider the Claimant’s actions to be misconduct. It was possible for it to arrive at that conclusion. [ 30 ] The Employer didn’t show that the General Division made an error of law in applying the legal test. On the contrary, the General Division considered the Claimant’s computer knowledge as well as the impact of her actions on the Employer. There is no arguable case that the General Division made important errors of fact [ 31 ] An important error of fact means that 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. Footnote 39 I can’t reassess evidence that the General Division heard, or intervene simply because I would have weighed the evidence differently. Footnote 40 I can intervene only if the General Division based its decision on a finding of fact that contradicts or isn’t supported by the evidence. Footnote 41 [ 32 ] In this case, the Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division ignored crucial evidence or made findings of fact that are directly contradicted by the evidence. There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored the Claimant’s admissions [ 33 ] In its application to the Appeal Division, the Employer alleged that the General Division ignored undisputed evidence. It argued that the Claimant made admissions, recorded in the telephone notes at GD3-65, during a Service Canada investigation. Footnote 42 It submitted that the Claimant admitted that she remotely deleted many of the employer’s work documents. It submitted that at the October 23, 2025, hearing, she said otherwise. [ 34 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored the evidence that the Claimant deleted files, as it found that she did. It determined that the Employer’s story was supported by the evidence. It said that it is more likely that the Claimant deleted the files remotely on July 30, 2024, at 2:52 p.m. Footnote 43 It also found that the evidence shows that the Claimant deleted some files. Footnote 44 So, it partially accepted the Employer’s position that the Claimant deleted some files on July 30, 2024. There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored the Employer’s evidence about the content of the [NAME] [ 35 ] In its application to the Appeal Division, the Employer alleged that the General Division ignored the testimonial evidence from its assistant [NAME] director. Footnote 45 It says that she stated that she had noticed the student [NAME] files in [NAME] before the Claimant deleted them. The Employer criticized the General Division for stating at paragraph 21 of its decision that it didn’t have evidence about the content of the boards in [NAME]. [ 36 ] After looking at the record, I find that there is no arguable case that the General Division ignored the Employer’s evidence about the content of the boards that the Claimant created in [NAME]. The General Division considered the evidence presented on that point. Footnote 46 In its decision, it wrote that the Employer alleged that all student files were on the [NAME] platform. Footnote 47 It referred to the screenshots the Employer provided to show that there were “boards” as well as the Employer’s IT report at GD3-63. In that report, the assistant [NAME] director stated that all student files, lists of students waiting for [NAME] and retakes, and students already admitted were on the [NAME] platform. Footnote 48 So, the General Division considered that evidence from the Employer. [ 37 ] But it had to weigh it against what the Claimant presented. It explained that she denied having student files in [NAME]. Rather, she said that she kept notes there and used it as a planner. Footnote 49 A single board was submitted as evidence. It is empty, which supports the General Division’s finding that it didn’t know what the boards contained. Footnote 50 So, when the General Division said that it “can’t know the content of each board,” it’s because it didn’t have clear evidence about what they contained. Furthermore, it said at paragraph 29 that “the [NAME] presented don’t support” the conclusion that the Claimant transferred confidential information belonging to the Employer. [ 38 ] The General Division is tasked with evaluating and weighing the evidence. It determines whether one party’s evidence outweighs the evidence of the party who opposes it. Footnote 51 The Employer didn’t show an arguable case that not explicitly referring to the assistant [NAME] director’s testimony is an important error of fact. In its decision, the General Division included the Employer’s contention that student files were in [NAME]. The General Division isn’t required to refer to every piece of evidence and is presumed to have reviewed and considered the totality of the evidence. Footnote 52 There is no arguable case that the General Division mischaracterized or ignored the evidence about the email transfer [ 39 ] In its application to the Appeal Division, the Employer submitted that the General Division made an incorrect finding of fact at paragraph 22 of its decision. There, it decided that the screenshot of the email inbox linked to the Claimant’s personal email address, which she used to create her [NAME] account, didn’t show that she transferred student files there. Footnote 53 [ 40 ] The Employer said that in making that finding, the General Division ignored the Claimant’s statement at GD3-65, the assistant director’s testimony, and the information in the report from the Employer’s IT department (GD3-61 to GD3-64). Footnote 54 [ 41 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made a finding of fact that was perverse or capricious or that was directly contradicted by the evidence when it decided that the screenshot of the Claimant’s email inbox didn’t prove that she was receiving student emails there. The Claimant’s statements at GD3-65 support the General Division’s finding. There, she said that she used the Employer’s [translation] “[NAME]” inbox as well as the COBACOL application to deal with email requests from students and try to assign them a retake course. She said that she never deleted students’ requests from the [NAME] email. Footnote 55 She explained that she created her [NAME] account like a checklist and didn’t use it to create any boards. Footnote 56 I don’t see an arguable case that those statements contradict the finding at paragraph 22 of the General Division’s decision. [ 42 ] The Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the assistant [NAME] director’s testimony directly contradicts the General Division’s finding of fact. The assistant [NAME] director testified that the information about student admissions wasn’t in the Claimant’s personal [NAME] inbox, but in [NAME]. Footnote 57 When the Claimant cross-examined her, she confirmed that the information wasn’t in the [NAME] account. Footnote 58 So, her testimony appears to support the General Division’s finding that the Claimant didn’t receive professional emails to her personal [NAME] account. [ 43 ] The Employer also alleges that the General Division’s conclusion at paragraph 29 is erroneous. It says that the Claimant admitted that she had deleted its files, but the General Division found that the evidence didn’t show that the Employer’s files had been transferred. Footnote 59 Actually, the General Division wrote in its decision that the evidence didn’t show that the Claimant transferred all the Employer’s documents and files to her personal email. This is because it found that the screenshot of the Claimant's personal email account showed that she didn’t use it much. [ 44 ] There is no arguable case that the evidence contradicts that finding. The two screenshots at GD3-62 appear to support it. You can see that between the month of January, when the Claimant created her personal email account, and July 30, there were no more than 20 emails in her inbox. None appear to have come from a student. The Employer’s witness, the assistant [NAME] director, testified that the students didn’t really communicate at that level. Footnote 60 So, there is no arguable case that the General Division made a finding contrary to the evidence. There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored that the Claimant failed to respond to the Employer’s formal notice [ 45 ] In its application to the Appeal Division, the Employer alleged that the General Division wrongly stated that it hadn’t contacted the Claimant to find out where her work files and students’ data were. Footnote 61 [ 46 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact here. It wrote that the Employer didn’t try to contact the Claimant to get access to files before searching her work computer and accessing her [NAME] account, in her absence. Footnote 62 [ 47 ] The evidence presented by both parties was that the Employer hadn’t tried to contact the Claimant to locate information between the time she left work on July 30, 2024, and when it sent the formal notice on August 2, 2024. The assistant director testified that she hadn’t thought to write to or call the Claimant to ask for the information she was looking for. Footnote 63 When she was asked why she went into the Claimant’s computer the first day she was absent for illness, the assistant director replied that she could go into her employee’s computer if she wasn’t there. She added that the work had to go on and she had to train the Claimant’s replacement. Footnote 64 So, it appears that this testimony supports the General Division’s finding of fact that the Employer didn’t try to contact the Claimant before accessing her computer. [ 48 ] In addition, there is no arguable case that the General Division ignored that the Claimant didn’t reply to the Employer’s formal notice. The General Division said at paragraph 35 of its decision that the Claimant hadn’t replied to the formal notice. It also commented on the circumstances in which the events occurred and in which the formal notice was sent. It is important to note that the Claimant testified at the hearing that she received the August 2, 2025, formal notice five minutes before receiving the termination letter. Footnote 65 The Employer’s second witness, the director of [NAME] and [NAME] [COMPANY] for SUP Canada, also confirmed that both documents had been sent the same day. Footnote 66 This means the Employer sent the formal notice to the Claimant just before terminating her job. The failure to reply wasn’t central in determining whether there was misconduct, as the decision to terminate her job had already been made. There is no arguable case that the General Division misidentified the reason for separation [ 49 ] In its application for permission to appeal, the Employer argued that the General Division misidentified the Employer’s accusation against the Claimant, at paragraph 32 of its decision. Footnote 67 There, it said that the Employer accused her primarily of transferring all emails and documents belonging to it to her personal email. The Employer contends that the real problem was that the Claimant’s use of a personal [NAME] account made work documents inaccessible, as only the Claimant had the password. [ 50 ] But that isn’t what the evidence shows. [ 51 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division’s conclusion on the reason for separation was made in a perverse manner or without regard for the material before it. The termination letter sent to the Claimant accused her of creating a personal email address to which she transferred all the Employer’s emails and documents, and of trying to delete confidential information belonging to the Employer. Footnote 68 The letter didn’t say that the Claimant had made the data inaccessible. [ 52 ] There is also no arguable case that the evidence before the General Division established that the Employer terminated the Claimant’s job because it could not access the work documents she had used. It did access her [NAME] account while she was absent for illness. Footnote 69 It also accessed her [NAME] account from her work computer. The assistant [NAME] director testified that she had to enter the Claimant’s [NAME] address in [NAME] to access the Claimant’s account, and it worked. Footnote 70 Having accessed the Claimant’s [NAME] account in her absence, the assistant director changed the account parameters and made herself the account administrator. Footnote 71 The Claimant testified that she had needed her personal [NAME] address to create her [NAME] account but not to access it. Footnote 72 She added that her [NAME] username and password were saved to her work computer. Footnote 73 [ 53 ] So, the Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division made an error in identifying the Employer’s accusation against the Claimant. It repeated the content of the termination letter. There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored important evidence [ 54 ] The Employer says that the Claimant wasn’t removed from her new position. Footnote 74 It alleges that her transfer to her new position became impossible after she left work unexpectedly the morning of July 30, 2024. [ 55 ] The Employer hasn’t shown an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact when it found that the Claimant was removed from her position. The assistant [NAME] director testified that the position transfer was supposed to take place the week after July 30. Footnote 75 She said that she didn’t know that the transfer wasn’t going to happen. Footnote 76 The Claimant received an email on July 30, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., informing her that her transfer to the physical resources management department had been delayed. Footnote 77 The General Division said that the Claimant had been removed from her position to explain the circumstances that led to termination. Footnote 78 The evidence on file is that the Claimant’s transfer was delayed without explanation. A few days later, the Employer terminated her job. [ 56 ] The Employer also criticizes the General Division for failing to mention that the Claimant didn’t discuss the position transfer date with the manager of the physical resources department after she went on sick leave. Footnote 79 I don’t find this relevant in determining whether there was misconduct or whether the position transfer was delayed. The evidence is that the position transfer was delayed even before the Claimant went on sick leave on July 30, 2024. I can’t criticize the General Division for failing to consider elements that aren’t relevant. I don’t have to look at whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made an error other than those raised by the Employer [ 57 ] [ADDRESS] asks us to look at the entirety of the file to determine whether the General Division made any errors other than those alleged by the Appellant. Footnote 80 But the Court asks us to do this when it is a person representing themself. [ 58 ] In this case, the Employer is represented by a lawyer who raised several errors of law and fact in the application to the Appeal Division. This means I don’t have to look at the file to determine whether there is an arguable case that the General Division may have made errors other than those alleged by the Employer. I explained why I am satisfied that none of the errors alleged by the Employer could give the appeal a reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [ 59 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the benefit claim at GD3-6. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Notice of Decision at GD3-22. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the request for reconsideration at GD3-27. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Notice of Decision at GD3-67. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the General Division decision at AD1-14. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the General Division decision at AD1-14 at para 3. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2017  FC  120 at para 38. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  21 at para 9. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See the General Division decision at AD1-17 at para 14. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See the General Division decision at AD1-17 at para 14. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See the General Division decision at AD1-17 at para 14. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See the General Division decision at AD1-17 at para 15. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See the General Division decision at AD1-17 at para 14. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the General Division decision at AD1-17 at para 16. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 Listen to the October 23, 2025, hearing recording at 00:52:00. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the General Division decision at AD1-19 at para 24. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See details in the “Size” and “Item type” columns of the photo at GD3-59. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at para 30. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See the email at GD3-34 from the head of physical resources management, informing the Claimant that her transfer to that department was delayed. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 2:54:20. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-12. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See the Claimant’s résumé at GD17-4. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 00:51:35. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at paras 32 and 37. See also Service Canada’s telephone notes at GD3-51. The Employer’s representative said that there was no code of conduct for using external applications or about the Claimant’s position. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at paras 32 and 37. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at para 31. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at para 31. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See the General Division decision at AD1-22 at para 37. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See the General Division decision at AD1-21 at para 32. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See section 58(1)(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2022  FCA  157 at para 27. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2022  FCA  157 at para 29. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See the General Division decision at AD1-19 at para 24. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at para 30. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See the General Division decision at AD1-18 at paras 20 and 21. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See the General Division decision at AD1-18 at para 21. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See the report at GD3-63. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See the General Division decision at AD1-18 at para 21. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See the board named [translation] “Placeholding” at GD3-64. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at para 46. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at para 46. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 The General Division refers to GD3-62. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See the telephone notes at GD3-66. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See the telephone notes at GD3-66. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 Listen to the September 24, 2025, hearing recording at 00:35:50. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 Listen to the September 24, 2025, hearing recording at 00:36:00. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 Listen to the September 24, 2025, hearing recording at 00:15:30. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-11. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See the General Division decision at AD1-20 at para 28. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 02:52:20. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 02:53:20. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 Listen to the October 23, 2025, hearing recording at 00:34:00. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 Listen to the September 24, 2025, hearing recording at 01:47:43. Return to footnote 66 referrer Footnote 67 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-12. Return to footnote 67 referrer Footnote 68 See the termination letter at GD3-45. Return to footnote 68 referrer Footnote 69 See the Claimant’s statement to Service Canada at GD3-20. She said that the Employer accessed her [NAME] account on July 31, 2024. See also the report produced by the Employer at GD3-63, in which it admitted that it had accessed the Claimant’s personal [NAME] account. Return to footnote 69 referrer Footnote 70 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 01:31:39. Return to footnote 70 referrer Footnote 71 See the report at GD3-63. Return to footnote 71 referrer Footnote 72 Listen to the October 23, 2025, hearing recording at 01:26:50. Return to footnote 72 referrer Footnote 73 Listen to the October 23, 2025, hearing recording at 01:29:00. Return to footnote 73 referrer Footnote 74 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-12. Return to footnote 74 referrer Footnote 75 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 02:08:50. Return to footnote 75 referrer Footnote 76 Listen to the August 28, 2025, hearing recording at 02:08:40. Return to footnote 76 referrer Footnote 77 See the email at GD3-34. Return to footnote 77 referrer Footnote 78 See the General Division decision at AD1-18 at para 19 and at AD1-21 at para 35. Return to footnote 78 referrer Footnote 79 See the application to the Appeal Division at AD1-12. Return to footnote 79 referrer Footnote 80 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  615 at para 10. Return to footnote 80 referrer