| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
Alchoholism |
|
Summary:
The issue was whether the Umpire erred in holding that the claimant's conduct was a symptom of his alcoholism and not wilful misconduct. The FCA stated that under section 30 of the EIA, misconduct has been defined as conduct that is wilful, meaning conscious, deliberate or intentional. The FCA added that in cases of alcoholism related misconduct, a claimant will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if both the alcoholism and the involuntariness of the conduct in question are established. The FCA noted that there was no medical evidence relating to the claimant's alcoholism or whether the circumstances in which he started to drink effectively made his consumption of alcohol involuntary.
