S4T Friday Zoom Aug 29 - EI Misconduct Part III

This week we will examine the “Just Cause” principle in-depth, as this is the statutory basis for our Case AND we will collaborate on Public Interest Letters for anyone who was denied EI.

These letters will be included in this claim as evidence of the harm caused by this policy and we want YOUR input on creating the content so we will draft these letters, together! There will be two versions, one to allow everyone to add their '#MeToo' to them. This will not only tell the 'powers-that-be' our public sentiment, but also document the specific ways in which these unjust errors have impacted your case!

A quick synopsis of previous presentations:
In Episode #1, watch here: https://rumble.com/v6wcssa-s4t-friday-night-zoom-july-19-ei-case-shaking-up-the-system.html, we briefly addressed the Legislative History of the EI Act (between 1988-1996). Specifically, the 'Just Cause' provision (EIA s29[c]) that requires EI Adjudicators to consider 14 Factors before they can Disqualify (EIA s30) or Disentitle Claimants (EIA s31 & s32).

This includes section 29(c)(xi) "Practices of an Employer that are Contrary to Law" and section 29(c)(vii/ix) 'Significant Changes' to the Employment Contract.

In total, drafting this EI Reform took 3 Bills, 5 Years & 4700+ Pages of Hansards (Parliamentary minutes). It was not only the most significant change in EI History, it was also called the most controversial legislative change the PC Party ever made (113: 1:7:14-19).

Wikipedia called this "the worst defeat for a governing party at the federal level and one of the worst ever suffered by a governing party in the Western world."

The Parliamentary Hansards document the massive civil unrest this specific EI Change caused 6+ times in two months [C113: 1:5:62, 1:5A:42, 1:7:12, 1:7:18, 1:9:43]. This proposed change caused so many problems that police made multiple arrests at MPs' Offices [C105: 12:15376f] and the EI Department planned a significant construction project to 'put back doors' into every EI Agent's office for 'safety reasons'... [C113: 1:7:18 & 1:9:43]. They also ejected a witness & censored his testimony after he called out the hypocrisy underlying their 'justification' for this change. [113:1:3:24-26 & 1:7:13f].

The Hansards are unequivocal: 10+ MPs, 5+ [Deputy] Ministers, 3 EI Directors & 2 Parliamentary Secretaries all state their Legislative Intent: EI Benefits cannot be Denied to Claimants who have ‘Just Cause’ when separating from their Employment – regardless of who initiates the separation – and this explicitly includes situations where 'Employers allege Misconduct'.

After proving that 'Just Cause' Analysis is the legal basis for Disentitling Claimants, we will examine some important Atrium Decision Templates that were used to 'justify' refusing to conduct this statutorily-mandated fact-finding process. This demonstrates how SST TMs (Tribunal Members) 'Reverse-Engineered Outcomes' (violating Vavilov ¶121) while breaking the EI Act.

This Unlawful & Procedurally-Unfair pattern was used to Deny thousands of otherwise qualified Citizens their EI Benefits – at one of the most difficult times in their lives.

This 'Just Cause' problem forms the statutory basis for deconstructing this massive scandal once-and-for-all.

Read more about the EI Misconduct case Justice4EIMisconduct.com.

If you like this content, and would like to support our channel, please consider buying us a coffee to help cover our costs. Thank you! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/stand4thee

If you haven't already, please join us on our social channels:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Stand4THEE
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stand4thee
Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/Stand4THEE

DISCLAIMER: All content on this site is for general information only, and should not be construed as legal advice!