Why Your Application For Employment Insurance Regular Benefits Was Denied If You Did Not Comply With A Mandatory Vaccination Policy

Introduction

If you were terminated for refusal to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy, and then applied for employment insurance regular benefits which most likely got denied, this article is for you.

I obtained, via an ATIP (Access to Information and Privacy) request, the full file, as seen by EI agents, of a person in the above situation.  The ATIP revealed the existence of an internal memo dated as of October 19th, 2021, titled: EI Eligibility and refusal to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy - BE 2021-10 (BE Memo).  Let’s dig into it.  Below is the first half of p.1 of the BE Memo. This the first of a series of posts.

The BE Memo provides more than information to all EI staff.  It has been used to justify the denials of EI claims arising from non-compliance with a vaccination policy.  The BE 2021-10 Memo is designed to deny such EI claims on two fronts: a finding of misconduct and/or a finding of unavailability.  What’s important to note here is that the BE Memo does NOT contain ANY references to the EI Act, EI Regulations or any jurisprudence. It even has a section on how to circumvent the Charter. 

Whoever wrote this BE Memo went over the EI concepts of “Voluntary Leaving”, “Suspension or Dismissal”, “Leave of Absence”, “Availability”, “Exemptions for Medical and Religious Reasons”, “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, “Fact-finding” and warped every single one of them to deny EI benefits to workers who rightly exercised their constitutionally protected right to safety and conscience by refusing to comply with a coercive medical procedure.[1][2][3]

It’s the weaponization of bureaucracy and an abuse of power[1] by a yet to be determined group of bureaucrats; Employment Insurance is part of the Employment and Social Development Canada portfolio, which has the following four ministers: Carla Qualthrough, Karina Gould, Seamus O’Regan Jr., and Kamal Khera.  

The overall BE Memo is intended to close all paths that would grant EI regular benefits if the claim originates from a vax mandate non-compliance.  It’s tantamount to a tort of misfeasance[2][3].  The BE Memo has the element of targeted malice[4] because it treats EI claims arising from non-compliance with a vax mandate differently than other EI claims. The BE Memo has its own special, made-to-fit, criterias to guarantee a finding of misconduct and the ensuing disqualification.

The intent and malice are obvious.  In contempt of EI law, EI regulations, the Charter, and EI jurisprudence, the BE Memo subverts the EI system, a cornerstone of our social net.  This BE Memo caused EI claims and EI reconsiderations arising from non-compliance with a covid vax mandate to be denied, which caused material damages of loss of EI benefits, psychological damages of greater economic vulnerability, emotional harm by wrong finding of misconduct, etc.

When applied, the BE Memo unfairly changes the burden of proof from a balance of probabilities to something closer to beyond reasonable doubt by introducing the concept of “exceptional circumstances” in various EI principles.

Historically when a resources town depending on mining, lumber, or a single major employer shut down, EI was there to support workers as such event was automatically deemed out of the worker’s control.  Driven by malicious politics of division, the EI system has been capriciously rigged to not recognize the most obvious that a pandemic is an event completely out of the control of workers.

Call to action:

1)     Share and spread this article.

2)     If you applied for EI because you were terminated for non-compliance with a mandatory vaccination policy, please obtain your full EI file using an ATIP.  For example, you could ask for: “Please provide my entire EI file, as seen by EI agents, including all historical claims, records of decisions, supplementary records of claims, all correspondence with employers, or other parties, etc.”

3)     Reach out to me, if you work in an organization that implemented a vax mandate and you:

a)      have some awareness of improprieties regarding terminated unvaccinated workers such as falsification of records, internal and external pressures to manipulate records of employments, inappropriate behaviors and communications between EI and an employer,

b)     want to share what you found in an ATIP or by other means,

c)      have awareness of financial or other considerations from the government in exchange for the implementation of a vax mandate in a workplace (indications of employers being coerced or incentivized to implement a vax mandate?)

d)     work for any non-profit organization that receives public funds, and you think there’s something wrong with the use of the funds.

e)     Just want to share something you think can help bring justice and restore freedoms.

Next Post: Background section of the BE Memo

Future Contemplated Posts:

·        A Serie of posts covering a large Canadian union financial statement, it’s a $500M+ scandal, multi-year scandal

·        A bit of financial history of the LNP (lipid nanoparticle) and how its development and historical clinical reality could see the light of a court.

·        Some posts about publicly traded companies that have poor prospects: things to sell short.

·        Some posts about entire industries that are high risk investments and better avoided.

---

[1] Criminal Code 423(1): Intimidation

[2] WHAT IS THE ROLE OF MISFEASANCE IN A PUBLIC OFFICE IN MODERN CANADIAN TORT LAW?

[3] Claims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary

[4] Malice in the law of torts

---

[1] Government of Canada, “Assault,” Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), S. 265 (1)(a). Accessed October 20, 2021

[2] “Assault,” Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), S. 265 (3)(d). Accessed October 20, 2021

[3] Supreme Court of Canada, “Hopp v. Lepp,” 1980 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 192. Accessed October 20, 2021