Summary of Issue: Leave Obtained Under False Pretences

Decision 77597 Full Text of Decision 77597

The claimant stated he was dismissed because the foreperson failed to take into consideration a medical certificate. The employer terminated the claimant because he falsified a medical certificate in order to receive statutory holiday pay. The claimant went to see his doctor to obtain a medical certificate, but then changed the date on the certificate. The Commission determined that the claimant’s action, namely, falsifying a medical certificate constituted misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act, because the action was fraudulent. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 73847A Full Text of Decision 73847A

On March 18, 2009, the claimant applied to renew his claim, but the Commission determined that the claimant had lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct and imposed an indefinite disqualification effective March 15, 2009. The reason given by the employer for dismissing the claimant was that he had falsified a medical report in regard to the date he could return to work. The claimant had denied falsifying any medical report and then stated that someone else had sent that document. The employer had stated that the claimant had acknowledged that he had forged the medical report he had submitted. The claimant’s appeal is denied.

Decision 75314 Full Text of Decision 75314

The claimant and his spouse were both employed by the same employer. The evidence shows that, with his spouse's knowledge, the claimant provided the employer with a forged medical certificate to justify his spouse's absence. After discovering that the certificate was forged, the employer dismissed the claimant and his spouse. The Board determined that the claimant had "deliberately and consciously forged a document that he knew to be false." Therefore, the Board rightly determined that the action constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The claimant's appeal is therefore dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 75316 Full Text of Decision 75316

The claimant and her spouse were both employed by the same employer. The evidence shows that, with the claimant's consent, the claimant's spouse provided the employer with a forged medical certificate to justify his spouse's absence. In fact, on a certificate issued in January 2009, the spouse wrote the date February 5, which corresponds with the day his spouse was absent from work. After discovering that the certificate was forged, the employer dismissed the claimant and her spouse. The Board determined that the claimant had "deliberately and consciously forged a document that she knew to be false." Therefore, the Board rightly determined that the action constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 73619 Full Text of Decision 73619

The Commission determined that the claimant had lost his employment by reason of his misconduct. The reason provided by the employer for dismissing the claimant was that the claimant had falsified a medical certificate to justify an absence. On the certificate in question, on which the doctor had approved the claimant's absence from work for April 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2009, the claimant had added "+10." The employer indicated that, during their first meeting to discuss the falsified medical certificate, the claimant had denied altering it. The claimant subsequently telephoned the employer to admit to his action. In the letter of dismissal of the claimant, the employer indicated that the claimant's action of falsifying a medical certificate constituted a violation serious enough to break the bond of trust essential to maintaining the claimant's employment. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision 65604 Full Text of Decision 65604

The umpire stated that the claimant's act of wilfully not reporting for work to take another job can only be characterized as misconduct and confirmed the Board's ruling that misrepresenting his reason for not reporting for work for the purpose of accepting work elsewhere amounted to misconduct.

Decision 21683 Full Text of Decision 21683

While on leave of absence from employment for the express purpose of caring for his newborn child, claimant was the operator of a black bear management area and running the sports and tackle shop. This was not his employer's understanding. That misrepresentation was misconduct.