How Service Canada’s EI Rulings Reward Misconduct and Cost the Public (Fired for Cause - Still Receive EI?)
- Nov 30, 2025
- 2 min read
I recently encountered a scenario that perfectly illustrates the problem: an employee was terminated for walking off the job out of anger. He was specifically told by his employer on that day that he was not permitted to leave, and that that his role was critical that day. To make matters worse, he had a history of insubordinate behaviour. Ignoring the clear instructions that he was not permitted to abandon work for the day, he left anyway. By any reasonable standard, this was insubordination and job abandonment. Understandably, he was fired for cause, and was not entitled to severance pay due to his insubordination and job abandonment. As an employment lawyer we see this situations frequently, and at first glance, nothing seemed out of the ordinary.
Yet when he applied for Employment Insurance (EI), Service Canada initially approved his claim. When the employer appealed, the agency maintained the approval on the baffling basis that the company had not explicitly stated in writing that leaving mid-shift would result in termination. They noted that the employer did not have signs posted warning of this in the workplace. In other words, they argued that if it wasn't literally posted on the wall, the employee couldn't be expected to know it was a terminable offense.
This is not only illogical, but it sets a dangerous precedent. No sane person needs a written sign to understand that abandoning your job or being blatantly insubordinate is grounds for termination. Should employers be obliged to post signs explicitly prohibiting misconduct such as "please do not steal" or "physically assault other staff may lead to termination"?
Courts would easily see this as common sense, and would uphold the termination for cause. But here we have a government agency applying a standard that defies basic logic and wastes public resources in the process.
The lesson is clear: the current system sometimes hands out benefits without applying the straightforward reasoning that any judge would use. This is not just a financial issue; it’s a matter of sensible public policy. In the end, we all pay the price for ignoring common sense.
