Decision A-0471.95

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0471.95 Choinière Diane  Federal  French 1996-05-28
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Unanimous  No Claimant  28142 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct  leave of absence denied 

Summary:

Leave not approved and, despite warning, claimant took time off from work. Claimant disqualified for misconduct and decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Appeal allowed by the FCA, which repeated that it had been wrong to think for a moment that the employer's opinion that there was misconduct justifying dismissal could suffice. On the contrary, an objective assessment was required to determine whether misconduct had really been the cause of the loss of employment.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
proof  errors in law  burden of proof 

Summary:

BOR took employer's version over that of the claimant. This "version" was nothing more than a brief written statement by a representative of the employer, to the effect that the employee had been dismissed for being absent without leave. The employer's opinion that there was misconduct justifying the dismissal was insufficient. On the contrary, an objective assessment was required to determine whether misconduct had really been the cause of the loss of employment. The FCA had to ensure that the applicable principles were observed and that conclusions reached could be drawn from the facts as analyzed. In this case, the decision did not appear to be properly based on the evidence on file.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
proof  misconduct  definition 

Summary:

Leave not approved and, despite warning, claimant took time off from work. Claimant disqualified for misconduct and decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Appeal allowed by the FCA, which repeated that it had been wrong to think for a moment that the employer's opinion that the there was misconduct justifying dismissal could suffice. On the contrary, an objective assessment was required to determine whether misconduct had really been the cause of the loss of employment. The FCA had to ensure that the applicable principles were observed and that conclusions reached could be drawn from the facts as analyzed. In this case the decision did not appear to be properly based on the evidence on file.


Date modified: