Summary of Issue: Driving Permit

Decision 73664 Full Text of Decision 73664

The claimant was a driver employed in Alberta and ceased being employed in September 2008. He could no longer drive his vehicle as his driver's licence had been suspended as a result of non-payment of family support under the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario. When his driving privileges were restored, he found another employment but not until December 2008. In the present appeal, when the claimant left his employment, he was not qualified to drive and had no prospect of finding employment or the assurance of another job. The appeal is dismissed. Le prestataire travaillait en Alberta comme chauffeur et a cessé de travailler en septembre 2008. Il ne pouvait plus conduire son véhicule, car son permis avait été suspendu aux termes du Code de la route de l'Ontario parce qu'il n'avait pas payé sa pension alimentaire. Ce n’est qu’en décembre 2008 qu’il a récupéré son perms et trouvé un nouvel emploi. En l'espèce, lorsque le prestataire a quitté son emploi, il n'avait pas le droit de conduire, n'avait aucune perspective d'emploi et n'avait pas l'assurance d'obtenir un autre emploi. L’appel du prestataire est rejeté.

Decision 76320 Full Text of Decision 76320

Misconduct driving permit, misconduct breaches of company policy, misconduct alcohol, drugs and gambling The claimant was arrested in the State of Michigan for driving under the influence of alcohol and for possession of alcohol in a commercial vehicle. The claimant admitted that he was aware of the policy of his employer with respect to alcohol. This policy required that drivers should abstain from alcohol for a period of 8 hours before driving and no alcohol was tolerated on board vehicles except alcohol which would be included in the load to be delivered. The claimant submitted that his action was not willful since he suffers from alcoholism. The respondent's employment was terminated on June 2, 2006 because he had failed to report to work or to contact his employer from June 3, 2006 to June 13, 2006. The respondent had gone on a drinking binge and admitted himself into a detox program. The employer had assumed that the respondent had abandoned his employment but was willing to discuss the possibility of his reinstatement once the respondent had received a clean bill of health. Unfortunately, several health issues deprived the respondent of that opportunity. The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 75876 Full Text of Decision 75876

The Commission’ decision dismisses the claimant’s claim for benefits for the reason that he voluntarily left his employment without just cause. The claimant lost his driver’s license for non-payment of child support. Since he could not drive a truck anymore he left his job and made a claim for unemployment benefits. The Court of Appeal ruled that failure to pay child support, in the absence of a valid explanation or justification, amounts to misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 72467 Full Text of Decision 72467

The claimant is, by profession, a transport driver and had been so engaged at the time he was dismissed by the employer on an allegation he lost his licence as a result of being found impaired. This was a second suspension. His driver's licence was essential to preserve his job and continue work for his employer. The documentary evidence reflects the loss of the license for driving while impaired and the resulting dismissal. The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 70778 Full Text of Decision 70778

The claimant was dismissed because he lost his driver's licence, which is an essential requirement for the job. The evidence showed that a police officer found the claimant stretched out on the driver's seat of his vehicle with the engine running. A breathalyser test showed a blood alcohol level over the allowable limit. His driver's licence was revoked on the spot under the Highway Safety Code. The Board of Referees reviewed the evidence and found that the Highway Safety Code prescribes loss of licence for having care of control of a vehicle while impaired, which was the case for the claimant. The reason for dismissal given by the employer was not that the claimant was charged with an offence but that he lost his driver's licence and no longer met one of the essential requirements of his job. There is ample case law, from both Umpires and the FCA, establishing that a claimant who lose their job as a result of losing their driver's licence for offences when a licence is an essential requirement of their job, are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of the EIA.

Decision 70608 Full Text of Decision 70608

The claimant lost his driver's licence. He was stopped by the police while driving a city employer's vehicle under the influence of alcohol. It was a requirement for his employment that he have a license to drive. The employer had a no tolerance policy with respect to alcohol in the workplace. He was in breach of the employer's policy. The claimant knew that he had drunk and he was going to drive a motor vehicle; that in itself is the act of misconduct. His act was deliberate and contrary to the employer's rules. The majority Board of Referees decision was erroneous finding of fact.

Decision A0090.07 Full Text of Decision A0090.07

The claimant was suspended because he no longer had a driver's license for failure to pay outstanding tickets - he was subsequently dismissed upon return to work despite having had his licence reinstated. There is no doubt that the claimant, by failing to pay his outstanding tickets, brought about the loss of his driver's license and that he could have been fired for that reason since performing deliveries was an essential requirement of his employment. But the Board and the Umpire found as a fact that the employer decided not to dismiss but rather to suspend briefly to see if the license could be re-acquired. The claimant having been initially suspended could not have been dismissed for misconduct since his license had been re-instated at the time of his dismissal.

Decision A0315.06 Full Text of Decision A0315.06

The BOR was entitled to find on the evidence before it that the claimant's failure to retain a valid driver's licence did not amount to misconduct since it was not an essential employment condition performed at the time of dismissal.

Decision A-0573.04 Full Text of Decision A-0573.04

The claimant was discharged because he had lost his driver's licence, a necessary document for a truck driver. The Federal Court established that an act that is an offence and that leads to a conviction under the Criminal Code constitutes misconduct under the Act.

Decision A-0072.04 Full Text of Decision A-0072.04

The Court found that acknowledging the right to regular unemployment benefits for employees who lose their driver's licence following an inexcusable or unjustifiable failure to pay a fine prescribed by law, and hence their job, would amount to a fundamental change in the nature and principles of the Act and the insurance program it institutes.

Decision A-0078.04 Full Text of Decision A-0078.04

The claimant was found by the Commission to have lost his employment because of misconduct. The Court found that the claimant's loosing his employment for having his driver's license suspended after failing to make child support payments constituted misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act.

Decision 61689 Full Text of Decision 61689

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0573.04

Decision A-0444.02 Full Text of Decision A-0444.02

The claimant was charged with impaired driving and his driving license was suspended pending the outcome of the charge. The Court stated that a conviction is not required in order to find misconduct but the Commission must produce evidence as to the legal requirements that the driver's license be suspended.

Decision A-0666.02 Full Text of Decision A-0666.02

The claimant was found by the Commission to have lost his employment because of misconduct. The Court stated that the BOR's decision was reasonable in finding that the claimant's loosing his employment for having his driver's license suspended after failing to make child support payments constituted misconduct. The Court found that the Umpire erred and should not have intervened.

Decision A-0875.96 Full Text of Decision A-0875.96

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.

Decision A-1342.92 Full Text of Decision A-1342.92

Truck driver; driver's licence suspended; breathalyser test took on the weekend while he was driving his own car. The possession of a valid driver's licence was an essential condition of his employment. By losing it as a result of his wrongful act, he breached an express duty in the work contract.