Employment Insurance Denied Due to Misconduct

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  [NAME]  134 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 9, 2026 (GE-25-3488) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 24, 2026 File number: AD-26-95 On this page Decision Overview Issue I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] A. E. is the Applicant. I will call him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for [NAME] ( EI ) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada [NAME] Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 3 ] The Claimant is a certified gas technician. His employer dismissed him following an incident in which he failed to properly test for a gas leak. When the Claimant applied for [NAME] benefits, the Commission said he was not entitled to benefits because he had been dismissed for misconduct. [ 4 ] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider, but it would not change its decision. Next, he appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. He is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. [ 5 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact. Issue [ 6 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact by failing to consider evidence that he was dismissed because he had an accident in the employer’s truck? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal General principles [ 7 ] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. [ 8 ] I may consider only the following errors: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. Footnote 1 [ 9 ] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.” Footnote 2 Error of fact [ 10 ] The General Division makes an important error of fact where it bases its decision on a finding of fact that overlooks or misunderstands relevant evidence, or on a finding that does not follow rationally from the evidence. Footnote 3 [ 11 ] On May 2, 2025, the Claimant’s employer sent him to conduct an inspection at the home of a residential client after the [COMPANY] had flagged a possible leak. The Claimant tested the supply pipe running to the water heater for a gas leak, but he did not discover a leak. As a result, he “cleared the tag,” which meant gas service could be restored to the home. The Claimant did not conduct a “dial test,” which would require him to review the gas flow at the meter outside the house. [ 12 ] Later that day, another contractor inspected the home and found that the Claimant had missed the leak. The Technical Standards and Safety Authority ([NAME]) began an investigation the same day, and spoke to the Claimant on May 6, 2025. Its May 20, 2025, investigation report indicated that it was issuing orders to both the Claimant and the employer. [ 13 ] The General Division acknowledged that the Claimant had misunderstood what he needed to do to clear the tag. Nonetheless, it found that the Claimant, as a certified gas technician, should have known that his failure to conduct both leak tests was contrary to code. It also found he should have known he could lose his job. [ 14 ] The Claimant is not arguing that the General Division made an error in finding that his failure to conduct a required test was misconduct. He admitted that missing the leak was a safety concern and a “big deal,” and that he would have understood if the employer had dismissed him immediately. [ 15 ] The Claimant is arguing that this was not the reason the employer dismissed him. The Claimant believes he was dismissed because he had an accident with the company truck on May 23, 2025. He says that the General Division made an error of fact because it did not consider That the [NAME] decision was on May 6 and not on May 20, 2025. That the company allowed him to continue working between May 6, 2025, and his dismissal. That the employer did not dismiss him until a week after it received the May 20, 2025, report, which was also after his vehicle accident. The date of the [NAME] decision [ 16 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored or misunderstood evidence that the [NAME] made its decision on May 6, 2025. [ 17 ] The Claimant may believe that the [NAME] made a decision on May 6, but the General Division found otherwise. The General Division found that the [NAME] inspector issued orders on May 20, 2025. Footnote 4 It said that the [NAME] inspector’s notes say it spoke to the Appellant and the employer on May 6, but that it took follow-up action before completing its report on May 20, 2025. [ 18 ] This is not a matter of evidence that was ignored by the General Division: The Claimant simply disagrees with the General Division’s findings. However, I have no authority to interfere with how the General Division has weighed or evaluated the evidence, even if I might have decided differently. Footnote 5 . It is the General Division’s role to weigh the evidence and find facts. The Claimant kept working after the gas leak incident [ 19 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored or misunderstood evidence that the Claimant worked for the employer between his interview by [NAME] on May 6, and the date that he was dismissed. I believe he is implying that the employer would have dismissed him immediately after the gas leak incident if that had been its reason for dismissing him. [ 20 ] The General Division clearly understood that the Claimant continued to work after the gas leak incident. It noted that the Claimant was questioning why the employer would have him continue to do service calls if he was such a hazard. Footnote 6 [ 21 ] The Claimant has not identified evidence that the General Division overlooked. Instead, he is suggesting that the General Division should have drawn a certain inference or conclusion from the evidence. However, his continued employment after the [NAME] inspector spoke to him does not necessarily imply that the employer did not dismiss him for his misconduct. In fact, the General Division rejected this inference by finding it reasonable for the employer to wait until after it had received the [NAME] report and had done its own fact-finding. [ 22 ] This is a finding of fact, based on the General Division’s weighing of the evidence so, once again, I cannot intervene. The employer did not dismiss the Claimant until after the vehicle accident [ 23 ] Finally, there is no arguable case that the General Division failed to recognize the additional delay between the May 2 incident and the Claimant’s dismissal. [ 24 ] The General Division discussed the delay between when the Claimant missed the gas leak and when he was dismissed. It understood that the employer received the report on May 20 and that it only dismissed him on June 4, 2025. Footnote 7 However, it accepted that the employer had conducted fact-finding meetings with the Claimant on May 26 and May 30 (between its receipt of the May 20 report and the Claimant’s termination). Footnote 8 [ 25 ] As noted above, the General Division found it reasonable that the employer would wait for the [NAME] report, and then do its own fact-finding before making a decision. [ 26 ] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chanced of success. Conclusion [ 27 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the grounds of appeal. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  41; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  259. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 This is a paraphrase. An “important error of fact” is the error described in section 58(1)(c) of the DESDA . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See para 23 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See, for example: [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  439, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  354, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1254, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1367. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See paras 19 and 44 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See para 18, and para-12 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See para 14 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 8 referrer