Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the Social Security Tribunal (SST) Appeal Division’s decision denying EI benefits was reasonable under the administrative law standard of review.

• Central legal question was the interpretation of “misconduct” under sections 30–33 of the Employment Insurance Act.

• The appellant’s non-compliance with her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy triggered the EI denial.

• Relied on prior tribunal decision (AL v. CEIC) that was overturned and no longer precedential.

• The Federal Court of Appeal held that re-weighing evidence from lower tribunal decisions was beyond its role.

• No procedural unfairness or legal error was found in the SST or Federal Court decisions; appeal was dismissed without costs.

Facts of the Case

Heather Wong, the appellant, was denied Employment Insurance (EI) benefits by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (the “Commission”) after losing her job for refusing to comply with her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The Commission found that her loss of employment was the result of misconduct under sections 30 to 33 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, making her ineligible for benefits.

Ms. Wong challenged the Commission’s decision through the statutory appeal structure. She first sought a reconsideration from the Commission, which upheld the original denial. She then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (SST) General Division, which again ruled against her. Her application for leave to appeal that decision to the SST Appeal Division was denied.

Subsequently, she applied for judicial review in the Federal Court, which found the SST Appeal Division’s decision reasonable and dismissed her application. Ms. Wong then appealed the Federal Court’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, which issued the judgment in this case.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

The Federal Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the Federal Court’s decision, specifically whether it correctly assessed the reasonableness of the administrative decision from the SST Appeal Division.

Key aspects of the Court's reasoning included:

• The Court emphasized that its role was not to reweigh evidence or reargue the case but to determine whether the administrative decision was reasonable, following the framework set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

• The appellant had relied on the SST General Division’s earlier decision in AL v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2022 SST 1428. However, that decision had since been overturned by the SST Appeal Division (CEIC v. AL, 2023 SST 1032), and the Federal Court of Appeal had upheld that reversal (Lance v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 41). Accordingly, Ms. Wong’s reliance on that precedent was misplaced.

• The meaning of “misconduct” under the Employment Insurance Act was described as settled law, and the Court cited multiple recent decisions affirming this interpretation. It held that the SST Appeal Division’s finding that Ms. Wong’s refusal to comply with a known workplace policy constituted misconduct was consistent with existing jurisprudence.

• Ultimately, the Court found no error in the Federal Court’s approach. It confirmed that the Federal Court had applied the proper standard of review and found the tribunal’s reasoning and decision to be adequately justified.

Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Court upheld the finding that the denial of EI benefits due to the appellant’s non-compliance with her employer’s vaccine policy was reasonable under administrative law principles. No costs were awarded, as the respondent (the Attorney General of Canada) did not seek them.