Federal Court Upholds Disqualification from EI Benefits Due to Refusal to Vaccinate
📌 In brief
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an application for judicial review, confirming that a worker's refusal to comply with their employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constituted misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act, resulting in the worker being disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
⚖️ Legal holding
A refusal to comply with an employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constitutes misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act, leading to disqualification from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a person cannot receive Employment Insurance benefits if they lost their job because of their own misconduct or if they quit without a good reason. This disqualification applies to each week of their benefit period, unless they have worked enough hours in a new insurable job since then, or if other specific rules apply.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review, upholding the decision that his refusal to comply with his employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constituted misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an application for judicial review, affirming that refusing to comply with an employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constitutes misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act, leading to disqualification from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260225 Docket: A-63-24 Citation: 2026 FCA 41 CORAM: LOCKE J.A. [NAME]. [NAME]. BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 25, 2026. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on February 25, 2026.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: [NAME]. Date: 20260225 Docket: A-63-24 Citation: 2026 FCA 41 CORAM: LOCKE J.A. [NAME]. [NAME]. BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on February 25, 2026). [NAME]. [ 1 ] [NAME] seeks judicial review of a decision (Decision) of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal ([NAME]) dated January 9, 2024 (AD-23-694) dismissing his appeal of a decision of the General Division of that Tribunal (June 8, 2023, GE-23-740). [ 2 ] The General Division found that [NAME] had knowingly failed to comply with [NAME]’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy (Vaccination Policy), and concluded that he had been suspended from his job with [NAME] for misconduct pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act , S.C. 1996, c. 23 (EI Act) . As a result, [NAME] was disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits. [ 3 ] On appeal from the General Division, the Appeal Division similarly concluded that [NAME]’s deliberate violation of the Vaccination Policy constituted misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act, citing Canada (Attorney General) v. [NAME] , 2005 FCA 87 and Canada (Attorney General) v. [NAME] , 2002 FCA 460; see also [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2007 FCA 36 at para. 14, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 31967 (27 September 2007); [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 40 at paras. 6-27, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 41765 (9 October 2025) ( [NAME] ). [ 4 ] The Appeal Division made the following observations, a number of which reflect arguments that were before the Appeal Division and that [NAME] relies on in support of this application: Misconduct for purposes of the EI Act does not imply that the conduct in question was the result of wrongful intent; it is sufficient that the misconduct be conscious, deliberate or intentional (paragraph 20 of the Decision). The General Division’s role was to assess (i) whether [NAME] was guilty of misconduct, and (ii) whether that misconduct led to his dismissal (paragraph 21 of the Decision). It was not for the General Division to focus on the conduct of the employer or to consider whether the Vaccination Policy was reasonable or whether the imposition of the Vaccination Policy violated the employment law relationship because those concerns fall outside of EI law; the General Division had to focus on [NAME]’s conduct (paragraphs 34, 36, 37 of the Decision). Any question of accommodation, violation by [NAME] of the law or the collective bargaining agreement in imposing the Vaccination Policy, or any violation of [NAME]’s human or constitutional rights, is a question for another forum (paragraphs 38 and 40 of the Decision). [ 5 ] We are agreed that [NAME]’s application must be dismissed. The Decision was reasonable, which is the standard on which we must review it: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65. T he Appeal Division’s conclusions are supported by the evidentiary record, respect the statutory constraints of the EI Act and meet the [NAME] threshold for justification. Further, the Decision is consistent with the jurisprudence of this Court applying the test for misconduct for purposes of subsection 30(1) to a knowing failure to comply with an employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. While it is true that the facts of each case are different, [NAME] has not convinced us that his case should be distinguished from the recent jurisprudence of this Court in similar circumstances: see, for example , [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 41; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 102, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 41441 (13 February 2025); [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 7 ( [NAME] ); [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 96; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 81; Kuk v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 74; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FCA 240; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FCA 217, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 41064 (16 May 2024); and [NAME] . [NAME] has not convinced us that this jurisprudence is manifestly wrong so as to permit us to depart from it: [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2002 FCA 370 at paras. 9-10; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 190 at para. 16; Comité interprofessionnel du vin de champagne v. Coors Brewing Company , 2026 FCA 2 at paras. 48-49. [ 6 ] On appeal, [NAME] maintains his argument that both the [NAME]’s conduct in imposing and enforcing the Policy were unlawful and must be addressed; in his view, to do otherwise undermines the rule of law. However, the Appeal Division reasonably concluded that these issues are beyond the scope of the [NAME]’s mandate under the EI Act. They must be addressed by other decision makers and under different statutory regimes. As this Court has said, “[w]ere the applicant’s submissions to be upheld, the Social Security Tribunal would become a forum to question employer policies and the validity of employment dismissals. Under any plausible reading of the legislation that governs the Tribunal, it is a forum to determine entitlement to social security benefits, not a forum to adjudicate allegations of wrongful dismissal” ( [NAME] at para. 6). [ 7 ] [NAME] also asserts that the General Division’s use of template language was procedurally unfair. [ 8 ] We do not agree. The Appeal Division correctly found no unfairness in the use of template language by the General Division in this case. A court assessing procedural fairness must ask “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances” , including “whether the party knew the case they had to meet, had an opportunity to respond and had an impartial decision maker” : [COMPANY] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras. 41, 54. As the Appeal Division stated, the General Division held a hearing, listened to [NAME]’s arguments and issued a detailed decision based on the evidence and [NAME]’s arguments, most of which were outside of the General Division’s jurisdiction. It is clear that [NAME] had full opportunity to present his case and it is equally clear that the General Division listened to and understood his arguments. The fact that the certain of the same paragraphs used by the General Division in this case appear in other decisions does not create unfairness or raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. [ 9 ] For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the application for judicial review without costs. "[NAME]" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-63-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: February 25, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LOCKE J.A. [NAME]. [NAME]. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: [NAME]. APPEARANCES : [NAME] ON HIS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The applicant's deliberate violation of the employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy was considered misconduct.
- The court focused solely on the applicant's actions rather than the reasonableness of the employer's policy.
- The issue of whether the employer's conduct in imposing the policy was lawful was deemed irrelevant to the Employment Insurance Act.
- The use of template language by the General Division was not considered procedurally unfair.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant argued that the employer's conduct in imposing and enforcing the vaccination policy was unlawful.
- The applicant claimed that the General Division's use of template language was procedurally unfair.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the decision that refusing to comply with an employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constitutes misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether refusing to comply with an employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy could lead to disqualification from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that refusing to comply with the mandatory vaccination policy constituted misconduct, as the worker's actions were conscious, deliberate, and intentional, leading to disqualification from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Act, specifically section 30(1), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the worker's refusal to comply with the mandatory vaccination policy was conscious, deliberate, and intentional, constituting misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits if they refuse to comply with their employer's mandatory vaccination policy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.