| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
Alcoholism |
|
Summary:
The Court re-affirmed a number of past Court cases, in particular the principle that there will be misconduct where the claimant knew or ought to have known that their conduct was such as to impair the performance of the duties owed to their employer and that, as a result, dismissal was a real possibility. The Court also cited a number of past rulings to the effect that a claimant's problem with alcohol cannot allow the claimant to escape the conclusion that misconduct was the cause of the dismissal. The Court said there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the claimant's conduct was not wilfull because of his alcoholism. The Court said that there can be no disputing that an employee's repeated failure to show up for work is a serious breach of the employment contract, all the more so when the employee has been warned by the employer that such failure will result in dismissal. The Supreme Court on September 27, 2007 dismissed the claimant's application for leave to appeal.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misconduct |
Charter |
|
Summary:
In determining whether a claimant has lost their employment by reason of misconduct due to absences related to alcoholism, a determination of whether the claimant has a disability under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) or whether the employer met its duty of accommodation under the CHRA are irrelevant. The Supreme Court on September 27, 2007 dismissed the claimant's application for leave to appeal.
