Decision 75006
Full Text of Decision 75006
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed as he was obtaining a financial benefit as a result of participating in a cash back scheme. The practice consisted of using certain service stations to refill the employer's vehicle. It is alleged certain dealers were charging a different price to fill a commercial vehicle and gave the driver a cash gift card. The claimant does not dispute he participated in a fraud against the company, at its expense, but pointed out that 19 other drivers from his unit were also indulging in the same act. The claimant's actions were, in law, fraudulent and a wilful act. The claimant is not entitled to benefits as it consists of misconduct. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 74474
Full Text of Decision 74474
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission denied benefits since it was of the view that the claimant lost her employment by reason of her own misconduct. While holding a position of trust with her employer, the claimant has fraudulently used a credit card belonging to her employer to charge without its consent and knowledge a substantial amount of personal expenses. As the claimant had several children to take care of, the employer decided against pressing criminal charges against the claimant, reserving its right to press civil charges if not reimbursed. In the present affair, there are no contradiction between the employer's and claimant's statements: the claimant's use of the employer's credit card combined to her attempt to cover up that use by withholding the employer's statement was not accidental; the claimant's scheme was such that it had to be planned and deliberate. There is no doubt that it constituted misconduct, and that the Board's decision to that effect is well founded in fact and in law. In addition, the claimant admitted the theft of funds through the employer's credit card and confirmed having been dismissed for that reason. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 74548
Full Text of Decision 74548
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant had lost her employment due to her misconduct. In the termination letter from the employer, it said that the claimant and her dependents fraudulently claimed to have received paramedical services, i.e. physiotherapy and massage treatments, and attempted to obtain benefits from the City for those services. The employer stated that the claimant created receipts using the name and Registration numbers of several therapists and submitted these on the templates from five different Health Care Centres. The employer confirmed that the investigation and the grievance have been on-going since 2008. There were approximately between 50 and 100 possible fraudulent receipts submitted. The claimant never denied the allegations against her, she indicated that she had grieved her dismissal and that her grievance was proceeding. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 74065
Full Text of Decision 74065
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was a driver for the employer, who dismissed him because he had used the company's credit card to buy gasoline for his personal automobile. He was filmed at the gas station and a representative of the employer saw the video. The employer wished to press charges against claimant, which was eventually done. The BoR's decision was based on material placed before it; and it did not ignore any material elements. The employers often feel that they have proved claimant's misconduct. However, what they consider bad behaviour sufficient to be cause for dismissal does not necessarily meet the notion of "misconduct" within the meaning of the Act. The employers appeal is dismissed.
Decision 72583
Full Text of Decision 72583
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant stated that she was dismissed because her employer found out that she had been implicated in a criminal act, which involved the fraudulent use of a credit card. The claimant had been imprisoned for five days after accusations of fraud with her former spouse, she could not make a long-distance call from jail and therefore could not contact her employer to notify it of her absence. The employer stated that the claimant was dismissed because she failed to show up for work on three consecutive days without a valid reason and without notifying the employer.
The Umpire allowed the Commission's appeal.
Decision 71427
Full Text of Decision 71427
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission in its appeal submitted that the Board of Referees erred in law and on the facts when they determined that the claimant was engaged in legitimate business activity outside of her normal work for the school and had ignorantly become involved in a scheme of abusing government funds for personal profit. The Umpire is satisfied that the claimant has been found guilty of a criminal offence arising out of the secret commission in the abuse of government funds for personal profit is sufficient to show misconduct as her act was shown to be illegal and the Board ignored that fact when they considered their decision. The appeal of the Commission is allowed and the decision of the Board set aside.
Decision 70855
Full Text of Decision 70855
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked as a security guard and needed a licence issued by the government to perform his job. He could not renew his licence because he had a criminal record (impaired driving). His employer gave him the choice of being dismissed on the spot or resigning. He preferred to resign to avoid having a bad record. The Board of Referees erred in fact and in law. The claimant could no longer work as a security guard without a licence for that purpose. He could not renew his licence because of his offence. Therefore, clearly, he lost his employment because of that offence, which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Although the employer wanted to do the claimant a favour in giving him the choice of resigning, it is evident that the misconduct existed at the time of his resignation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
Decision 66998
Full Text of Decision 66998
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant needed to have a gaming license in order to do his work at Casino Windsor. That was a requirement with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. The claimant's actions of having committed the criminal offences and having been convicted resulted in him losing his license. That was his act of misconduct.
Decision 66756
Full Text of Decision 66756
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant lost her employment after being convicted of the ciminal offence of dangerous driving causing death due to her inability to report for work following the imposition of a conditional sentence of one-year house arrest. The Umpire referred to several FCA decisions and in particular A-1342-92 (Brisette) in allowing the Commission's appeal.
Decision 65001
Full Text of Decision 65001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because she could not obtain a security certificate from the police department since there were charges pending against her. She needed this certificate to work as a security guard. Jurisprudence establishes that, a person who cannot fulfill his/her position because one of the conditions required to discharge the duties of the employment is not met, is deemed to have lost his/her employment due to misconduct.
Decision 64493
Full Text of Decision 64493
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been dismissed for failing to report for work because of his imprisonment. He had been falsely accused by his former spouse and the charges against him had been dropped. The claimant had not been able to obtain a bond because he was already on probation. The Umpire sated that, whether the imprisonment resulted from the most recent charge brought against him or an earlier charge, which had led to his being on probation, the claimant nonetheless had been prevented from reporting for work because of his own actions, and the judge ruled that the claimant had lost his job as a result of misconduct.
Decision 64437
Full Text of Decision 64437
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant committed a criminal act which led to his incarceration and consequently he lost his employment. The Umpire stated that the steps that the claimant took to inform his employer were not relevant to the cause of his loss of employment. His own actions led the claimant to be incarcerated. The judge concluded that this conduct, which is clearly misconduct, caused his loss of employment.
Decision 50536A
Full Text of Decision 50536A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a correctional services officer, had developed a romantic relationship with an inmate, contrary to professional ethics. She had also been involved in drug trafficking in the institution. This was considered to be reprehensible behaviour with an inmate on the part of the claimant and, although the claimant was acquitted of the first two charges, the BOR could not ignore the last two charges of which she was found guilty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision 41667A
Full Text of Decision 41667A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant arrested on 27-12-96, incarcerated for a breach of probation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released on 22-03-97. Neither he nor his father did call his work to notify them of his absence. Claimant claimed that he made every reasonable attempt to contact his employer but was physically unable to do so because of incarceration. Referring to FCA decision in Brissette (A-1342.92), Umpire held that if, due to his misconduct outside of the workplace, he is unable to fulfil that contract, then he has lost his job due to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
Decision 43119A
Full Text of Decision 43119A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant charged with sexual assault in connection with incidents occurred 10 years ago. Found guilty by the Ontario Court - General Division and dismissed the next day. Claimant never pleaded guilty and has maintained throughout that he is innocent. Claimant disqualified for misconduct and decision maintained by BOR. Held by Umpire that where there is a conviction following a trial but the claimant maintains his innocence, a finding must be made as to whether the claimant conducted himself as alleged. To discharge the burden of proof, more evidence may have to be adduced. Error in law to simply conclude that a conviction constitutes misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 44345
Full Text of Decision 44345
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed after it was brought to the employer's attention that she had been charged with possession of marijuana thereby causing her bond to be revoked. Commission argued that the charge could only be laid on an information of reasonable and probable grounds that the crime alleged had been committed. BOR reasoned that laying a charge does not establish misconduct because the mental element of wilfulness is absent. Guilt cannot be presumed or inferred simply because a charge has been proffered. Referring to FCA in Meunier (A-0130.96), the Umpire recognized that employer had no choice but to dismiss the claimant after claimant's bond was revoked but that she was not dismissed due to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 42431
Full Text of Decision 42431
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
In determining misconduct under the Act, it is a question not necessarily of whether or not there is a criminal conviction but of whether the claimant's actions seriously jeopardized the employer's interests.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
Decision 38585
Full Text of Decision 38585
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Owing to his conviction and the nature of his job, which is based on a relationship of trust between the salesperson representing the company with clients, the employer was justified in taking dismissal action . Through his misconduct, he deliberately did something that would disqualify him from receiving benefits, even though his actions took place off the premises of the employer. A furniture salesperson who breaks and enters at numerous cottages and commits thefts there is not protected from the application of section 28 of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
Decision A-0875.96
Full Text of Decision A-0875.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
| misconduct |
misconduct prior to employment |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 35428
Full Text of Decision 35428
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, a constable, arrested for possession of narcotics for the purpose of sale and trafficking while off-duty. Being charged with criminal offences does not necessarily prove misconduct. Here, the nature of misc. is so deleterious to his occupationthat the Director of Police had to suspend him
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision A-0130.96
Full Text of Decision A-0130.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant suspended following a charge of sexual assault. Only evidence in the record: employer's vague and speculative version of the facts. BOR asked the Commission to investigate further but the Commission refused. Disqualification upheld by the BOR and by the Umpire, who was satisfied with the body of evidence. FCA disagreed: to show misconduct and the link between misconduct and employment, not enough to raise the filing of criminal charges not yet proven at the time of separation from employment and to rely solely on the employer's speculations, with no further verification. References to Joseph (A-636-85), Langlois (A-94-95), Choinière (A-471-95) and Fakhari (A-732-95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 33359
Full Text of Decision 33359
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant suspended: charged under the Criminal Code with possession of a controlled substance. Behaviour contrary to expectations of a teacher's conduct. Not necessary that misconduct be committed at workplace or while carrying out duties. Employee could no longer meet the conditions of employment.
Decision 31899
Full Text of Decision 31899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0130.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 27484
Full Text of Decision 27484
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Some time after the appeal was allowed by the Board, claimant entered a plea of guilty to the criminal offence of fraud and was sentenced. Held by the Board that it was bound by the facts it deemed material existing at the time of its decision. In my view, the Board erred in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 27088
Full Text of Decision 27088
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Illegal sales of cigarettes. The fact that this did not occur during working hours is not relevant. A criminal offence in the workplace constitutes misconduct, whether or not the employer suffered any harm. No explicit regulation of the employer, but a moral condition.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
Decision 25352
Full Text of Decision 25352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was in a position of trust as a bookkeeper. She took advantage of her position by failing to implement a garnishment against her own wages. This made the employer liable to show cause and pay out of his own pocket. That she was acquitted of theft from employer in the Court is not relevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
Decision 25071
Full Text of Decision 25071
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant charged with theft. The Board found that the employer had acted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds in terminating the employment due to the irregularities in the claimant's handling of the till and postage payments. The Board's findings were reasonable and not perverse or capricious.
Decision 24974
Full Text of Decision 24974
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
In such instances (criminal charges), it is not for the Board to conduct its hearing as a criminal trial and attempt to discern the innocence or guilt of claimant. To do so would clearly be to exceed the jurisdiction of the Board. However. the Board may not simply rely upon the laying of charges.
As I stated in CUB 10868, the responsibility of the Commission and, in turn, of the Board and this Court is to determine whether the employer has acted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds in dismissing the employee for misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Decision 24381
Full Text of Decision 24381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher criminally charged of sexual harassment. It is well established jurisprudentially that the onus is to the Commission to prove that the claimant lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt not necessary; the balance of the probabilities suffices.
There is a legal maxim that criminal law does not override civil law, inasmuch as the rules of evidence differ. The Board erred in giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant to which he is entitled only as regards charges levelled against him.
Decision 21574
Full Text of Decision 21574
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1342.92
Decision 23168
Full Text of Decision 23168
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed due to criminal activities on the job for which charges are pending, plus civil proceedings against claimant who filed a counterclaim. No evidence on record as to guilt or innocence. The employer will not release any statement pending laying charges and legal action. Insufficient evidence.
Decision 22672
Full Text of Decision 22672
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission is not bound by the findings in a court of criminal jurisdiction in which proof must be made beyond reasonable doubt. An accused may well be acquitted but for UI purposes where the decision must be made on the basis of balance of probabilities he may well be disqualified.
The documentation shows that the complaint (charges laid in a criminal court) was dismissed on a motion for non-suit without the defendant being called upon to testify. The offence alleged must therefore be considered as not proven.
In CUB 5025, I had occasion to state: "It is evident that if there is nothing before the Board to justify the loss of employment as a result of misconduct other than a charge of theft pending in the Criminal Court, the Board cannot properly assume misconduct from the mere laying of such charges."
Decision 22544
Full Text of Decision 22544
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
In order for the employer to manifest good faith and reasonable grounds (as stated in CUB 10680), the claimant's "own" misconduct must be objectively demonstrated, not beyond a reasonable doubt but on a solid balance of probabilities.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
Decision 21784
Full Text of Decision 21784
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
There is no doubt that the employer acted on reasonable grounds in suspending claimant. That does not however equate to misconduct on the part of the employee. An employer can dismiss an employee for all sorts of reasonable grounds but that does not mean misconduct.
Not sufficient evidence to support misconduct. Claimant was charged with sexual assault. He was acquitted largely because the complainant was not believed. Neither the Board nor the Umpire has had any direct evidence from that individual or other witnesses called at the trial.
Neither the employer nor co-employees had any direct knowledge of what gave rise to a charge of sexual assault. To find misconduct here would be to find that it was misconduct to be charged with an offence. That surely cannot be. Individuals are presumed innocent until convicted.
Decision 21674
Full Text of Decision 21674
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The Board's decision does not appear to contain any error in law. Claimant charged with hit-and-run which he denies. The employer allegedly had statements from 3 witnesses, and also markings on the vehicle indicative that a slight accident had taken place which he did not report.
Decision 21666
Full Text of Decision 21666
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Pharmacist suspended on allegations of a third party that he had provided drugs to him. The Board properly pointed out that the disqualification could always be removed if claimant could produce a copy of the Court's judgment.
Decision 17790B
Full Text of Decision 17790B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for sexual assault. The Board had evidence of claimant's own admission that he assaulted a female co-worker. That action was undoubtedly misconduct on the part of claimant which resulted in his being dismissed from his employment.
Decision 20074
Full Text of Decision 20074
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Letter carrier who, while he was in uniform but off duty, was caught shoplifting at a grocery store and was charged with theft. Ultimately found guilty and was dismissed by Canada Post. He unsuccessfully argued that he was not wholly responsible due to his alcoholism as illness.
Decision 19597
Full Text of Decision 19597
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
While misconduct is not to be assumed simply because criminal charges have been laid, it must also be remembered that the ultimate dismissal of the charges do not necessarily prove that misconduct has not occurred. The question of criminal guilt is not before the Board.
The Board allowed the case because the Commission and the employer had been unable to prove the criminal charges against claimant because the trial had not yet taken place. This is clearly an error of law. PERUSSE referred to. Findings of court not determinative of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 19491
Full Text of Decision 19491
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Court order restricting release of information with respect to sexual assault of minor. If the court order is still in effect, it would appear that the Commission would have to concede that it could not in the circumstances of this particular case meet the onus of proof upon it.
Family assistance officer charged with sexual assault of minor. Court order restricting release of information. It would certainly seem anomalous that a Board would be unable to gather sufficient evidence because of the parties' admittedly vital interest in privacy.
Decision 19151
Full Text of Decision 19151
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Taxi driver charged with aggravated assault. Charges stayed after Board's decision because witness and complainant did not appear in Court. I am satisfied that the employer was correct in suspending him but the Board erred by assuming misconduct from the mere laying of charges.
Decision 18911
Full Text of Decision 18911
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
In the view of the Board, the question is whether the employer acted in good faith on reasonable grounds, not whether the insured person is guilty. An error in law in not demanding evidence of misconduct. Criminal charges related to a period prior to employment do not suffice.
Decision 18263
Full Text of Decision 18263
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
If one is accused of theft and then pleads guilty, dismissal is by reason of misconduct, whether the theft took place at work or not, and more particularly, where the nature of the work is such as to require absolute integrity due to type of cargo handled. 6 weeks warranted.
Decision 17582
Full Text of Decision 17582
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Director of recreational activities facing 4 charges of sexual assault on minors. Sentencing beforehand not necessary. Employer acted in good faith and must take necessary precautions. Accusations sufficient justification for Board's decision.
Decision 14841B
Full Text of Decision 14841B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
An acquittal on a criminal charge of driving with impaired faculties would not be binding on the Commission in finding that claimant had lost his job by reason of misconduct, the evidence being substantially different. [obiter]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
| claim procedure |
applicability |
general |
|
Decision 17480
Full Text of Decision 17480
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Board decision based on an erroneous principle of law, that it did not have to decide whether the insured was guilty of theft but should decide if the employer acted in a reasonable manner. Must be convinced CEIC has shown conclusive evidence.
Decision 17306
Full Text of Decision 17306
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Chemist caught manufacturing illegal drugs using company equipment. Company directed by RCMP to release him. Regardless of whether the substances found were on the controlled list, just the fact that his activities were extremely embarrassing to the company warrants dismissal.
Decision 16836
Full Text of Decision 16836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Charges pending before Court. Board not prepared to declare claimant guilty. Commission argued the Board misconceived its role and that misconduct is broader than criminal guilt. I agree the Board misinterpreted the law in considering it had to determine guilt or innocence.
Decision 16298
Full Text of Decision 16298
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
There can be proof of misconduct within the meaning of the law without the insured having necessarily been found guilty of a criminal charge.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Decision 16296
Full Text of Decision 16296
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Having been accused of theft, he alleges that nothing was proven and that the Board should have waited for the results of the police investigation. Proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required, the weight of evidence is sufficient. Insufficient proof in the file. Not necessary to wait.
Decision 10680
Full Text of Decision 10680
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
One can envisage a criminal charge being laid and the Crown failing to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. After trial, decision on misconduct would still stand, assuming it is agreed employer acted in good faith and upon reasonable ground. See CUB6210.
If Board had conducted a "trial" and determined claimant took the machines it would clearly have exceeded its jurisdiction as stated in CUB 5025. Employer did act in good faith and upon reasonable grounds in dismissing claimant for misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
