Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Challenge centered on whether suspension for refusing COVID-19 vaccination constitutes “misconduct” under the Employment Insurance Act.

• General Division held that suspension (without dismissal) did not amount to misconduct, focusing on employer action.

• Appeal Division reversed, ruling that employee’s knowledge of policy and consequence was the key factor.

• Applicant cited religious beliefs for non-compliance, but the tribunal found intent and awareness outweighed motive.

• Court confirmed that employer’s decision to suspend vs. terminate is irrelevant in assessing misconduct.

• No procedural or legal errors found in the Appeal Division’s reasoning; judicial review dismissed.

Facts of the Case

Corina Costea, the applicant, brought a judicial review application to the Federal Court of Appeal following a decision by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The case arose from Costea’s suspension from her employment due to her refusal to comply with her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

She had applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, but was denied on the basis of misconduct. Initially, the General Division of the Tribunal ruled in her favor, determining that since she was suspended—not terminated—her actions did not constitute “misconduct” under the Act.

However, the Appeal Division disagreed, reversed the General Division’s decision, and held that her suspension did amount to misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from receiving EI benefits. Costea then sought judicial review of this outcome in the Federal Court of Appeal.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

There was no discussion of specific contractual or policy clauses in the decision. The analysis focused on legal interpretations of “misconduct” in the context of employment insurance.

Key Legal Findings:

• The central legal issue was whether Costea’s knowingly non-compliant behavior—refusing the COVID-19 vaccination while aware it would lead to suspension—amounted to misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.

• The Appeal Division held that the employer’s response (suspension vs. termination) was not relevant to determining misconduct. What mattered was that Costea knew the consequences of her actions and chose not to comply.

• Costea argued that her refusal was religiously motivated, but the Court emphasized that under Canadian law, the focus is on the act of non-compliance and the awareness of its likely consequences, not the reasons for it.

• The Federal Court of Appeal found that the Appeal Division applied the correct legal standard, referencing recent precedent (e.g., Francis, Sullivan, Cecchetto), and ruled its decision to be reasonable and well-supported.

Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Costea’s application for judicial review, upholding the Appeal Division’s decision that she was disqualified from EI benefits due to misconduct. The court concluded there were no legal or procedural errors, and no costs were awarded.