Subscribe now

Justice 4 EI Misconduct: Public Interest Letters

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Last Updated: 2026-02-15 @22h

Contact Info: J4EIM@outlook.com

Note: This is the most important way you can use your voice to influence change.

Note: Please contact us if you have any questions about this process. (Phone#)

Public Interest Campaign

During the pandemic, hundreds of thousands of Canadians were wrongly denied Employment Insurance (EI) Benefits under the ‘Misconduct’ label. This widespread injustice devastated livelihoods across the country – not only for workers, but for their families, partners, and communities. For many, the experience was confusing and painful, with little understanding of how or why these decisions were made.

Through this J4EIM Judicial Review, we now have answers: this court case exposes how our system failed Canadians in ways that never should have happened.

Our Public Interest Campaign gives you a way to use your power – your voice – to help secure Justice for EI Misconduct. If you were harmed or angered by what happened, this is for you. If you contribute to and rely on EI, this is for you. Even if you’ve never received EI Benefits, your voice still matters. You can help shape a fair and accountable system for everyone.

By speaking up, we can show Decision-Makers (ADMs) that Canadians know what happened, are watching closely, and expect real justice and meaningful reform. Public Interest is a crucial part of every court case, and when citizens participate, it has a profound impact on government decision‑making.

This case is significant and challenging. We are asking the Court to acknowledge that new, discriminatory EI processes were engineered across multiple agencies – sometimes in secret – that led ADMs to break the law. And they often used pre-written ‘Decision Templates’ that either ‘reverse-engineered’ outcomes or determined them in advance. This is a serious request – but it is also the truth.

Right now, the most important action Canadians can take is simple: Print & Mail your Public Interest Letters to the relevant government bodies. Each letter sends a clear, powerful message that Canadians want accountability, transparency, and Justice.

When enough voices come together, they give our institutions the courage to do what is right – not what is easy.

True Justice will only come when Canadians demand it.
 

Why Public Interest Letters?

Meet DA. Like many Canadians, DA was denied EI Benefits under the unjust label of ‘Misconduct’. He followed every required legal step on his own (without a lawyer) – just as many others did – but chose a different legal path by challenging the system itself. Instead of focusing on errors in his individual EI Decision, DA questioned the legality of the new, pandemic‑era decision‑making processes themselves. That challenge is now before the Federal Court of Appeal.

For the Courts to treat Public Interest submissions seriously, the Supreme Court of Canada requires proof of three things: (see: ‘CCD’: 2022 SCC 27 [¶16])

1. (a) That the case raises a serious and significant problem, (‘Justiciable’)

2. (b) That the people affected have a ‘Genuine Interest’ in the outcome, [and]

3. (c) That a Court ruling could meaningfully help resolve the injustice.

This is where your voice matters. Your Public Interest Letters can help demonstrate all three requirements. By sharing your expectations & experiences, while standing together with others across Canada, you help show the Court why this case demands fair and thorough treatment – for every EI Claimant – and why Justice must be done.

Engineered injustices must never be permitted to become precedent.

Public Interest Letters (Instructions)

Please follow these instructions to use your voice by sending your Public Interest Letters to the relevant government entities. This process should take about one hour. (+$8.50 for a ‘6 Stamp Booklet’. Envelopes are cheaper on Amazon than at Canada Post.)

Step 1: Download the Templates

Step 2: Customise Your Letters (Optional)

Step 3: Print & Fill-In Your Letters

Step 4: Tell Your Own Story (Optional)

Step 5: Verify, Sign & Mail Them

Step 6: Send Copies by Email (Optional)

Step 7: Let Us Know You Acted

Step 8: Visit Your MP (Optional)

Step 9: Share this with Others

Step 1: Download the Templates

To make sure your voice reaches the people who can create real change, you’ll need to send them Public Interest Letters. They tell officials that you believe what happened was unfair or unlawful, and that Canadians want the system fixed. And don’t worry – you don’t have to start from scratch. We’ve prepared ready‑to‑use templates that you can personalize with your own experience and details.

(Click Here to download all Public Interest Letters & Templates):
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/(Public-Interest-Letters).zip

Document Name              Word   PDF

1. Court Letters (#1-2): FCA + SCC      Word   PDF

2. DOJ (#3-4): AG + Litigation Dir.       Word   PDF

3. ESDC (#5-7): Minister + Sec. + Ombuds   Word   PDF

4. Member of Parliament (#8)         Word   PDF

5. Justice 4 EI Misconduct (#9)       Word   PDF

6. Personal Impact Statement        Word   PDF

7. (Blank Template Letter)           Word   PDF

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 2: Customise Your Letters (Optional)

You can also personalize each Word Template (before printing) to make your letters even more impactful. Use clear, simple language and add your own voice. Think about who each letter is going to, and tell that recipient exactly what you want them to understand about your own experience and why this issue matters to you.

Please Be Respectful. None of these Recipients were responsible for this Scandal…

(You can also fill-in your Name & Address on each letter to avoid writing them by hand later.)

Public Interest Letters: (5) Templates = (9) Recipients (+Personal Impact Letter)

1. (#1-2) Appellate Courts: FCA + SCC (2 Identical Copies)

    

   Federal Court of Appeal: This is the Court currently deciding our Case.

   Supreme Court of Canada: Supervisory Court – where we would Appeal.

    

2. (#3-4) Justice Canada: A.G. + Litigation Director (2 Copies)

    

   Attorney General: Who is currently defending the Government’s Actions.

   Director of Litigation: Person responsible for managing Federal Cases.

    

3. (#5-7) Employment Canada: Minister + Secretary + Ombuds (3 Copies)

    

   Minister of Jobs: Cabinet Minister responsible for Employment Canada.

   Secretary of Labour: Privy Council Secretary responsible for ESDC & SC.

   ESDC Ombudsperson: Complaint Management & Dispute Mediation.

    

4. (#8) Members of Parliament: Federal Representatives (1+ Copy)

    

   Your MP (Any Party): Member of Parliament for your own federal Constituency.

     Ask your MP to Investigate this & amend Legislation to prevent this again.

    

   Nearby MP (CPC): Nearest Conservative MP if you have a Liberal or NDP MP.

     The CPC Caucus is waiting for paper copies of this Letter. They need to prove
     widespread support to justify taking specific actions re. this Scandal…

    

5. (#9) Justice 4 EI Misconduct: Us (1 Copy)

    

   J4EIM: Allows us to prove how many Interest Letters were Mailed. (Without ATIPs)

    

6. Personal Impact Statement: Also Denied for ‘EI Misconduct’ (1 Copy per Letter)

    

   Your Own Statement: Register your own details if you were also impacted by this.
      Identical Copies attached to each Public Interest Letter. (Default of 9 Copies)

    

   Note: You can still be impacted by someone else’s Denial. (Family Member / Partner)
     (e.g. You were forced to sell possessions to pay for a lawyer to help with an EI Case.)
     (e.g. The bank foreclosed on the family home because your spouse was Denied EI.)
     (e.g. A family member was vaccine-injured because of the immunisation mandates.)

    

7. (Personalised Template Letter: For Detailed Customisation)

    

   Baseline Template: For those who want to completely customise their Letters.

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 3: Print & Fill-In Your Letters

Print out the appropriate number of each Letter. (See List at: Step 2)

1. Fill in the Date + Your Contact Information (Page #1: Top-Left)

Note: You may leave out your Street Address on our Letter [only] for privacy reasons.
If possible, please give us your City & Postal Code so we can track important metrics.

2. Print Your Name + Sign Your Signature (Page #2: Middle)

Note: Your Signature is the most important part of this Letter.
Note: Sign using a coloured pen. (This helps prove it’s original.)

3. Mark Two Options: (a) #MeToo + (b) Attachment (Page #2: Middle)

    

a) Indicate whether Your Own EI Case was also impacted by this ‘process engineering’.

(It is vital that every recipient documents whether you were also impacted by this Scandal.)

b) Choose ‘See Attachment’ If you are including your own Personal Impact Statement.

(It is important that you put your own Testimony into the Record of this Case. Added together, they will all become invaluable if we need to Appeal this to the Supreme Court later this year…

The Supreme Court requires every potential Appeal to meet a ‘National Public Importance’ standard before they will grant permission to file the Appeal. [see: SCA §40])

4. Specify MP If Applicable (Page #2: Bottom)

Mark whether any MPs also received this Letter: Name MP + Riding if not your own.

    (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 4: Tell Your Own Story (Optional)

Print the number of Personal Impact Letters you need – one for each Recipient.

(9x Default: 2x Courts + 2x Justice Canada + 3x Employment Canada + 1x MP + Us)

     Download:     (Word Template)       (Printed PDF)

Note: They are all identical, so it’s faster to fill-in the Word Template before printing.

This Template has two pages: you can use either one or both of them to tell your story.

Part 1: Lists the 14 Common Errors that were engineered throughout this scandal.
Demonstrates the widespread impact of each of the legal, process & fairness errors.

Part 2: Gives you space to write your own story. Use this section to make sure the officials understand the human cost of what happened to you – and your own family.

If you were also Denied EI: Make sure your story is told too. Mark which errors also applied in your Case. Tell the government how widespread these serious errors were…

This is important: Your evidence proves that these errors were not unique to our case.

You can also write your own SST & Court Case numbers at the bottom of each page.

A Personal Impact Statement lets you explain how an unjust EI Denial affected you.

Note: You can still be impacted by someone else’s Denial. (Family Member / Partner)
  (e.g. You were forced to sell possessions to pay for a lawyer to help with their EI Case.)
  (e.g. The bank foreclosed on the family home because your spouse was Denied EI.)
  (e.g. A family member was vaccine-injured because of the immunisation mandates.)

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 5: Verify, Sign & Mail Them

     (List of Mailing Addresses Below)

Check Everything: Make sure each letter is filled-in correctly. (All blanks completed.)

Sign Each Letter: Ensure you put your Signature on every Letter. (Using a coloured pen.)

Label the Envelopes: Write the correct mailing & return addresses on each envelope.
(Note: You can leave your street address off the copy you send to us if privacy is a concern.)

Stuff the Envelopes: Make sure each recipient’s Letter goes into the right envelope.

Buy Stamps at Canada Post: You need stamps for the Letters not going to Parliament.
(5x Default: 2x: Courts + 1x: DOJ [Litigation Director] + 1x: ESDC [Ombuds] + Us [J4IEM])

(It’s cheaper to buy a ‘Booklet of 6’ than pay for individual stamps. Group discounts available.)

Mail Your Letters: Bring them to a Canada Post Office, Outlet, or Drop‑Box.

   (List of Mailing Addresses Below)

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 6: Send Copies by Email (Optional)

Sending a physical letter through Canada Post is the only way to make sure your voice counts. When a government Agency receives a citizen’s paper letter, it is legally required to register it and file your submission as part of the public record. This ensures that your concerns are formally recognised and will not be ignored or overlooked.

You’re welcome to email digital copies of your Letters as well. However, email is optional and does not replace the impact or legal weight of sending a physical copy.

Note: You can also call each Recipient and [or] tag them on social media. They are also required to publicly document any formal requests made by Canadian Citizens. (These actions are more impactful than basic emails that do not contain Public Interest Letters.)

The electronic contact information for each Recipient is listed below…

(Note: To ensure your contribution is properly included in this Case, you must mail your Letters through Canada Post. Every mailed letter strengthens public accountability and helps move this Case forward for all Canadians.)

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 7: Let Us Know You Acted

When you mail your Public Interest Letters, please send a copy to our PO Box too.

This step allows us to accurately track how many Canadians have taken part in this Campaign, which is essential for demonstrating the scale of Public Concern. Your Letter to us becomes part of the documented evidence showing how many people stood together to demand accountability.

Collecting paper copies of these Letters helps us:
• Confirm participation numbers in a verifiable way
• Show decision‑makers the real‑world impact of this issue
• Bring physical boxes to our Hearing as a powerful visual reminder of our voices

We also truly value the personal notes many of you include. Your experiences and words of encouragement matter – they remind us why this work is so important.

We do not need your full street address on this letter or envelope. Providing only your city & postal code is enough. This helps us create anonymized participation maps and riding‑level statistics, which strengthen our campaign without compromising privacy.

(Note: Your full street address is required on every other Letter – not going to us.)

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 8: Visit Your MP (Optional)

You can also send a copy of your Letter to your Member of Parliament (MP). MPs are elected to represent you, provide government oversight, and can push for change. Find your MP’s contact information on the House of Commons website. Ask them to uphold the law, and support fairness & due process for Canadians who have been wrongly Denied EI Benefits due to unlawfully engineered processes.

Below are the various options you can choose from, depending on your MP…

Conservative MP (CPC)

IF you have a Conservative MP (CPC) – and are within driving distance of their Constituency Office – they have requested that you hand-deliver your Letter to them.

(They are specifically waiting for our J4EIM Letters. Hand-delivery helps process them faster.)

If you are not within a reasonable driving distance, you can mail them like the others.

You can also call their Constituency Office: Ask them to look into this ‘J4EIM’ EI Scandal.

Liberal or Other MP (LPC, NDP, Bloc)

If you do not have a Conservative MP, you have three options:

1. Mail it to your own MP (from any party)

2. Mail it to the nearest Conservative MP

3. Mail them to both MPs (Options 1+2)

While Liberal MPs may not choose to act on your Letter, they are still required to document that you mailed it to them – and these Letters are discoverable. (via ATIP)

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party is considering acting on these Letters, but they need to prove that there is widespread Public Interest before they can do anything.
Mailing them to your nearest CPC MP also adds your voice to the public record – when they receive enough complaints from citizens, they are required to act on them…

Contact Shadow Cabinet

Note: You can also call & email the [CPC] Shadow Cabinet – the Conservative MPs currently responsible for oversight of the Liberal Party’s federal Agencies & Programs.

Like mailing your Public Interest Letters, these actions are also permanently recorded.
(Although they do not create the same legal weight as physically mailing them – both is best.
It only takes 10-15 min to send one email and make a few quick phone calls to your MPs…)

Phone: You can call their Constituency Offices to ask them to investigate this scandal.

Email: You can email your electronic Letter to the whole Shadow Cabinet at one time.

Conservative Party: Shadow Cabinet

Parliament: List of MPs
Parliament: MP Contact Info

The relevant members of the current Shadow Cabinet include: (Contact Info Below)

• Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Opposition Leader)

• Larry Brock (AG & Justice Minister)

• Garnett Genuis (Employment Minister)

• Michael Barrett (Ethics & Government Accountability)

• Jasraj Hallan (Finance Minister)

• Leo Housakos (Senate Opposition Leader)
   

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Step 9: Share this with Others

You can make a real difference by sharing this simple but powerful action with others. The more letters we send, the harder it becomes for Decision‑Makers (ADMs) to ignore our collective call for Justice on this issue.

If you know someone who was denied EI or affected by the mandates, invite them to join us. Or, if you care about the future of this ‘social safety net’ program, ask others to let Canada know… (This process takes about an hour and costs less than $10 in postage.)

You can even host Public Interest Letter‑Writing Gatherings – a chance for friends, families, and community groups to print, prepare, and mail their Letters together. (Canada Post also offers discounted stamp pricing when purchased in bulk, making group participation even easier.)

These Letters form the foundation of our case. They are the single most impactful way you can help obtain Justice for all Canadians. Without them, our case will be denied in silence – just like all the previous ones – but with them, it will be difficult for ADMs to justify turning this injustice into future precedent (a legal requirement).

   (Top: Back to Instructions)

Mailing Addresses

#1-2. Federal Courts (FCA + SCC)

Letters #1 & #2 are identical and are mailed to both the Current and Supervisory Court.

Federal Court of Appeal: Toronto
CAS Registry: Public Interest
200–180 Queen Street W.
Toronto, ON M5V 3L6

Supreme Court of Canada
Registry: Public Interest
301 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1

   (Back to Instructions)

#3-4. Justice Canada (AG + Litigation)

Letters #3 & #4 are identical and are mailed to both the AG and Litigation Director.

Department of Justice Canada
Office of the Attorney General
Morgan Macdougall-Milne
Litigation Director: Public Interest
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8

Honourable Sean Fraser
Attorney General of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

   (Back to Instructions)

#5-7. ESDC: Employment Canada

Letters #5–#7 are identical and are mailed to the ESDC Ombuds & Privy Councillors.

ESDC: Employment Canada
Liz Smith (Deputy General)
Ombuds Office: Public Interest
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, QC K1A 0J9

Honourable Patty Hajdu
Minister of Jobs & Families
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Honourable John Zerucelli
Secretary of State: Labour
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

   (Back to Instructions)

#8. MPs: Members of Parliament

Letter #8 usually goes to your own Member of Parliament. (Details at Step #8)

Note: There are other options in Parliament if your MP was involved in this scandal.
(Please refer to the detailed instructions at Step #8 if you believe this situation applies to you.)

Parliament: List of MPs
Parliament: MP Contact Info

   (Back to Instructions)

#9. J4EIM: Justice 4 EI Misconduct

Letter #9 is mailed to us, so we can track how many of you joined our fight for Justice.

Note: For privacy, we don’t need your street address, but your city & postal code help.
We can use them to create interactive maps & MP Riding lists for statistical analysis.

Matthew @J4EIM
BOX 99900 (AC 231 963)
RPO NorthLand
London, ON N5V 0B3

   (Back to Instructions)

Contact Info & Email Addresses

Note: This information is not meant to replace mailing your Public Interest Letters.

To ensure that each Letter is legally processed & documented by each Recipient, they must be physically mailed via Canada Post. (Or Hand-Delivered to MP’s Offices.)

However, if you also want to send an electronic copy – or follow-up with them to verify that your Letters were received – here is their correct contact information.

We also provide their X [Twitter] Handles, in case you want to tag them publicly.

#1-2. Federal Courts (FCA + SCC)

Template #1 (Courts) is emailed to both the Current & Supervisory Court. (FCA + SCC)
There are two email addresses for each Court: one for the Registry + one for the Court.

(Note: To save time, you can send one Letter to all four email addresses at the same time.)

(Note: Do not call the Courts to file formal complaints – you can call everyone else for this…)

Subject: ‘Public Interest Letter (re. #A-63-24)’

CAS Registry: Reception@cas-satj.gc.ca
FCA General: Information@fca-caf.ca

SCC Registry: Registry-Greffe@scc-csc.ca
SCC General: Reception@scc-csc.ca

(FCA: About the Court)
Ottawa: +1-613-996-6795
Toronto: +1-416-952-8006
X: @FedCourtApp_en

(SCC: About the Court)
General: +1-888-551-1185

   (Back to Instructions)

#3-4. Justice Canada (AG + Litigation)

Template #2 (DOJ) is emailed to both the AG & Litigation Director at Justice Canada.
Since the Attorney General is also an MP, they have two different email addresses.

(Note: To save time, you can send one Letter to all four email addresses at the same time.)

Subject: ‘Civil Litigation: Public Interest Letter (re. FCA #A-63-24)’

General: WebAdmin@Justice.gc.ca
Minister: MCU@Justice.gc.ca
Minister: Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca
Litigation: AGC_PGC_Ottawa@Justice.gc.ca
 

(DOJ: Justice Canada)
DOJ: +1-613-957-4222 (Department)
Law: +1-613-992-4621 (Litigation)
X: @JusticeCanadaEn (DOJ)
X: @MinJusticeEn (Minister/AG)

(MP: Sean Fraser [AG])
MP: +1-613-992-6022 (Parliament)
X: @SeanFraserMP

   (Back to Instructions)

#5-7. ESDC: Employment Canada

Template #3 (ESDC) is emailed to both the ESDC Ombuds & relevant Privy Councillors.

In addition to the ESDC Ombuds + Deputy General addresses (Liz Smith holds both roles), there are two other Ombuds that investigate complaints about ESDC programs:

The TaxPayer Ombuds (OTO) and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPSIC).

Note: If you send a single email to multiple recipients (instead of one to each), make sure you do not use ‘CC’ (Carbon Copy). Put all the addresses on the same ‘TO’ line. Most Ombuds do not act on emails when they are Copied, unless specifically asked.

Alternatively, you can include an opening line specifically asking each Ombuds to “individually investigate this situation from your own perspective, under your own laws.”

Subject: ‘Employment Canada: Public Interest Investigation (re. FCA #A-63-24)’

Minister: Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca
Secretary: John.Zerucelli@parl.gc.ca

ESDC/DG: Elizabeth.Ann.Smith@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca
Ombuds: EDSC.Ombuds-Ombuds.ESDC@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca

OTO: OTOBOCCOMG@oto-boc.gc.ca
OPSIC: Info@psic-ispc.gc.ca

(Minister/MP: Patty Hajdu)
MP: +1-613-996-4792
X: @PattyHajdu
ESDC: DM Letter (Jobs & Roles)

(Secretary/MP: John Zerucelli)
MP: +1-613-995-4702
X: @JZerucelli
ESDC: DM Letter (Jobs & Roles)

(ESDC: About Dept.)
X: @ESDC_GC
X: @ServiceCanada_E

(ESDC: Client Satisfaction [OCS])
OCS: +1-866-506-6806
(Submit Complaint [‘Policy’])

(OPSIC: Public Integrity)
PSIC: +1-866-941-6400
X: @PS_Integrity

(Taxpayer: Ombuds)
Ombuds: +1-866-586-3839
X: @OTO_Canada

   (Back to Instructions)

#8. MPs: Members of Parliament

Template #4 (MPs) usually goes to your own Member of Parliament. (Details at Step #8)

Note: You can also send copies to the [CPC] Shadow Cabinet – the Conservative MPs currently responsible for oversight of the Liberal Party’s federal Agencies & Programs.

Parliament: List of MPs
Parliament: MP Contact Info

Conservative Party: Shadow Cabinet

(Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Opposition Leader)
MP: Pierre.Poilievre@parl.gc.ca
Ottawa: +1-613-947-4608
Riding: +1-780-608-4600
X: @PierrePoilievre
FB: @PierrePoilievreMP
SS: @

(Larry Brock: AG & Justice Minister)
MP: Larry.Brock@parl.gc.ca
Ottawa: +1-613-992-3118
Riding: +1-519-754-4300
X: @LarryBrockMP
FB: @LarryBrockMP

(Garnett Genuis: Employment Minister)
MP: Garnett.Genuis@parl.gc.ca
Ottawa: +1-613-995-3611
Riding: +1-780-467-4944
X: @GarnettGenuis
FB: @MPGenuis
SS: @

(Michael Barrett: Ethics & Government Accountability)
MP: Michael.Barrett@parl.gc.ca
Ottawa: +1-613-992-8756
Riding: +1-866-498-3096
X: @MikeBarrettON
FB: @MikeBarrettON

(Jasraj Hallan: Finance Minister)
MP: JasrajSingh.Hallan@parl.gc.ca
Ottawa: +1-613-947-4566
Riding: +1-403-207-3030
X: @JasrajSHallan
FB: @JasrajSHallan

(Leo Housakos: Senate Opposition Leader)
MP: Leo.Housakos@sen.parl.gc.ca
Ottawa: +1-613-947-4237
X: @SenatorHousakos

  (Back to Instructions)

#9. J4EIM: Justice 4 EI Misconduct

Template #5 (J4EIM) is emailed to us, so we can track how many Letters were sent.

Subject: Public Interest Letters Sent (Courts, DOJ, ESDC & Parliament)

Matthew (@J4EIM)
Email: J4EIM@outlook.com

Attach your Letter + list which MPs you contacted electronically. (Phone, Email, X/FB)

  (Back to Instructions)

(Detailed Information)

Technical Details

Close to 500k Canadians were unlawfully Denied ~$13B of Employment Insurance Benefits during the Pandemic. Why? Because they supposedly “committed Misconduct” by not consenting to sharing their private medical records or not receiving an experimental medical treatment still under Clinical Trials in 2026. 1 2 3 4

Many Employers imposed mandates using unlawful Lock-Outs by “Suspending work or Refusing to continue to employ a number of their Employees, done to compel them to agree to Terms or Conditions of Employment.” 5 (This also breaks all provincial Labour Relations Acts)

To compound this, many Employers issued Records of Employment (ROEs) with False Reason Codes [in Block 16] (‘M’ for Misconduct [Suspension or Dismissal], instead of: ‘N’ for ‘Leave of Absence’), despite clear instructions from Employment Canada (ESDC). 6 This could be a Criminal Offence: CC §398 criminalises Falsifying Employment Records ‘with intent’. 7 (Does saving up to $1M in EI Premiums count?) All ROEs are Certified [in Block 22] that “I am aware that it is an Offense to make false entries and hereby Certify that all statements on this form are True.” 8

Since 1993, Parliament has required EI Decision Makers (ADMs) to investigate whether the Employer “acted contrary to law” among other ‘Just Cause’ reasons. (EI Act §29[c][xi]) 9 This test was consistently done until 2020, 10 when any examination of “employer’s actions” or “employment contracts” suddenly became ultra vires – or [supposedly] “outside the authority” of EI ADMs. These and other similarly unjustified & unlawful excuses were dropped into prewritten Atrium ‘Decision Templates’ that were inserted into over 1,000 Decisions. 11 These Templates also cherry-picked ‘precedents’, abused legal processes, inserted logical fallacies & caused other problems that our Supreme Court calls ‘unreasonable’ in Administrative Law. (cf. Vavilov) 12

EI ADMs were given new decision-making processes – in secret – that forced them to break the EI Act by refusing to conduct this mandatory Just Cause Analysis, and were prohibited from looking at Employment Contracts. 13 (But only in some cases…)

These are just some of the 15 Errors & 12 Questions 14 we are challenging in this Judicial Review (‘JR’). If we lose this Case, these outrageous procedural abuses will become binding precedent for all EI Decisions going forward. Injustice cannot become law.

The various Parties involved in this Case need to hear from Canadians everywhere: it is unacceptable for EI Leadership to engineer new, discriminatory processes in secret, that lead EI ADMs to break the law, in order to avoid paying out Benefits to which hundreds of thousands of Canadians were legally entitled. As is using prewritten Templates that determine the Outcome in advance. However, paying everyone would have created a major crisis in EI, as that represented ~50% of the entire EI Operating Account.

Who would be blamed If EI collapsed by paying out Canadians who did not consent to the mandates? Who created and incentivised the mandates? Cui Bono?

Controlling Case Law

The Governing Case re. Public Interest Standing is ‘CCD’ (2022 SCC 27).

2022 SCC 27: British Columbia (AG) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CanLII)

Although we are not ‘applying for Standing’ this Case sets out the Test for ‘Public Interest’. Our Letter should target this (‘CCD’), specifically showing how our Case:

1. Contains: (a) Serious Justiciable Issue

2. In which we all possess: (b) Genuine Interest [and]

3. This Case is: (c) Reasonable & Effective Means (to Obtain Justice)

Specific Paragraphs: ¶1, ¶22, ¶29-30, ¶33-35, ¶38, ¶44-46, ¶48-50, ¶52-55

Specific Contents

• List Errors & Highlight Injustice (Abuse of Process & Logically-Fallacious ‘Test’; Secret BE-Memo; Atrium Decision Templates: Reverse-Engineering Decisions [Legally-Conflicting Reasons]; Censorship Attempt; CEIC Changing Facts; etc.)

• Questions at Issue (e.g. #3: Employers Granting themselves the Right to Break the Law)

• Importance of Rule of Law, Truth, Justice & ‘Right-to-be Heard’

• Human Cost of Injustice (re. SST Stats: Efficiency & Monetary Costs: Spent $Ms fighting Unjust Issue that represented $0 Public Cost [granting prepaid EI Premiums].)

• Real Danger: Enshrining Injustice as ‘Precedent’

• Document Discrimination & Procedural Fairness

• Call for Transparency & Accountability

(Short Instructions)

This is an important step that informs each Decision Maker (ADM) that you care about this case personally, that you are watching them, and that you encourage each one of them to make the right decision, even though it might be very difficult to do…

It is easier to make difficult decisions when we know that the people are behind us.

Open each required PIL (9x) using the specific Templates for each Recipient (5x).

1. a. Courts: Two Copies (Current Court: FCA + Supervisory Court: SCC)

   b. Justice Canada: Two Copies (Attorney General + Litigation Director)

   c. Employment Canada: Three Copies (Minister + Secretary + Ombuds)

   d. Your MP: One Copy [or More] (Your own Member[s] of Parliament)

   e. J4EIM (Us): One Copy (This allows us to track & prove you sent them)

2. Make any desired changes, or print them out ‘as is’ if already satisfied with them.

3. Mark each of the two available options if applicable: #MeToo + Personal Impact.

4. Print out corresponding #of ‘Personal Impact’ Letters. (Edit it first if desired)
   Each Impact Letter is identical: this step is only done once, but printed several times.

5. Verify each letter is complete & correct, then Sign each one with a coloured pen.

6. Carefully label each envelope using the correct recipient & return addresses.
   (You can skip the Return Address on our copy for privacy reasons if that’s a concern.)

7. Purchase five stamps for the non-Parliament recipients: (Courts, DOJ, ESDC, Us)
   (2x Courts: FCA & SCC, 1x DOJ: Litigation Director, 1x ESDC: Ombuds, 1x: J4EIM)

8. Bring them all to a Canada Post Office, Depot, or nearby Drop-Box Mailbox.

9. [Optional] Call + Email electronic copies of each Letter to each Agency…

   (It is important to mail each primary letter using Canada Post, not just send emails. This obligates them to document, process & file each one in their various internal systems.
   NB: Do not call the Courts to register formal complaints – only to verify receipt of PILs.)

Template: Personal Impact Statement (Attachment)

This is our template for Personal Impact Statements. Each PIL ends with two options:

◯ My Own EI Case was affected by this Engineering.

◯ See Attachment: My Personal Impact Statement.

Mark the first option if you were also Denied EI for ‘Mandate Misconduct’ Reasons.

Select the second option if you want to expand & share your own story with them.

  (Back to Instructions)

The Personal Impact Statement addendum contains two pages you can use: (either/both)

#1: 14 Common Errors: Options to select the 14 most-common ‘C19-MM’ problems.

#2: Personal Impact Header: Space to write your own story, in your own words.

These letters are going to 4 entities: Courts, DOJ, ESDC & Parl. – all of whom have key roles to play in exposing what happened and reforming EI Adjudication going forward.

Sharing your own story – in your own words – can have tremendous impact. If you do not wish to share any details, just use the first page and select all that applied to you…

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Impact-Letter.docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Impact-Letter.pdf )

   (Back to Instructions)

Templates: Specific Recipients

Template #1 is sent to all four relevant Court email addresses together at one time.

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-Court.docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-Court.pdf )

Template #2 can be sent to all four relevant DOJ email addresses together at one time.

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-DOJ.docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-DOJ.pdf )

Template #3 is sent to all six Employment-related email addresses simultaneously…

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-ESDC.docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-ESDC.pdf )

Template #4 is sent to all relevant Parliament-related email addresses simultaneously…

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-MP.docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-MP.pdf )

Template #5 is sent to us: we track how many unique emails we receive from everyone.

We enjoy personalised messages of encouragement – and hearing your own story…

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-Letter.docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Interest-Letter.pdf )

Template: Baseline Letter (For Personalisation)

This is our baseline template for those wanting to build their own ‘PIL’ Letter. We already provided completed letters for each specific recipient Agency up above…

(NB: We include both MS Word & PDF versions of each document for flexibility.)

( Word: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/(Public-Interest-Base).docx )
( PDF: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/(Public-Interest-Base).pdf )

Public Interaction (Comments)

Provide your thoughts – and any #MeToo situations, specifically listing the Errors that applied in your own Cases… (Full List in Home Page)

Subscribe now

J4EIM: Public Relations Campaign 

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Last Updated: 2026-02-13 @22h

Contact Info: J4EIM@outlook.com

This ‘EI Misconduct’ Scandal affected around 450,000 Canadian Families: We need to Reach, Educate & Activate them if we want to obtain Justice from our Government.

Crowd-Sourcing this Story helps us reach a wider audience. If EI Justice is important to you, please reach out to large Journalists & Podcasters, asking them to cover J4EIM.

Our Press Releases can be shared with anyone & help raise awareness about this major precedent-setting Case. We also provide ‘Case Summaries’ and short ‘Clips’ that explain the ‘big-picture’ in small ‘sound-bytes’ for quick social media sharing.

If comfortable doing so, please CC: ‘J4EIM@outlook.com’ when sharing these PRs.

This will help us build out our network & ensure we do not ‘over-contact’ anyone…

Case Summaries

Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Summaries

Summary #1: Short (<500 Char.)

(Post Length: 68 Words / 479 Char + End Links [Total: 73 words / 566 char.])

A $13B E.I. scandal is now before the Federal Court of Appeal.

During the pandemic, secret internal directives and engineered processes overrode the law, leading to mass EI denials against legally-qualified Canadians falsely accused of ‘Misconduct’.

Benefits were denied using pre-written Decision Templates, misused case law, and a logically-broken Misconduct Test.

Public scrutiny is urgently needed.  If these errors are left uncorrected, Injustice will be cemented as precedent.

https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com  |  J4EIM@outlook.com  |  https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR

Summary #2: Medium (<1500 Char.)

(Post Length: 178 Words / 1261 Char + End Links [Total: 183 words / 1348 char.])

The J4EIM Case now before the Federal Court of Appeal exposes a $13-billion Employment Insurance scandal that devastated the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians wrongly accused of ‘EI Misconduct’.

Under the banner of ‘pandemic response’, new EI decision-making processes were engineered across multiple federal agencies.  These discriminatory processes – imposed using internal policy – led Decision-Makers to violate the EI Act by denying benefits to workers who were otherwise legally entitled to receive them.

Statutory legal requirements and long-settled case law were quietly overridden by a secret internal directive – the ‘BE-Memo (2021-10)’.  Then, EI benefits were denied on a mass-scale using pre-written Decision Templates that misapplied case law and changed the Misconduct Test by inserting two fundamental logical errors.

This Case raises urgent issues of National Public Importance.  Public attention and engagement are essential to ensure that judges and government officials fully confront and correct the systemic failures exposed by this case.

We cannot allow widespread administrative errors to be transformed into binding case law.  Injustice must not become legal precedent.  Canadians everywhere request Justice 4 EI Misconduct.


https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com  |  J4EIM@outlook.com  |  https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR

Press Releases

P.R. #1: 2025-09-29 (Case Summary)

Introduction: a Summary of the major EI Errors that occurred during the pandemic.

https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/i/174493615/pr-1-2025-09-29-case-summary

Simple Language: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR-1S (1 Page PDF)

Legal Language: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR-1 (1 Page PDF)

P.R. #2: 2026-01-22 (Hearing Notice)

Hearing Notice: Court Information & [Zoom] Registration Link

https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/i/174493615/pr-2-2026-01-22-hearing-notice

Hearing Notice: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR-Hearing (1 Page PDF)

Public Contacts

Email Subject: ‘J4EIM: $13B E.I. Scandal (FCA: Court Case)’

Small Platforms (<50K): High Probability

David Krayden (@Krayden’s Right)

Website: https://www.KraydensRightNews.com/about
SubStack: https://substack.com/@DavidKrayden

Email: Tips@KraydensRightNews.com
Email: DavidKrayden@hotmail.com

FB: https://facebook.com/KraydensRight
X: https://x.com/DavidKrayden

Jody Ledgerwood (@TFMReport.com)

Website: https://TFMReport.com
SubStack: https://FringeMajority.SubStack.com

Email: Jody@TFMReport.com
Email: Cris@TFMReport.com
Email: Contact@Ledgerwood.ca

FB: https://facebook.com/theFringeMajority
X: https://x.com/CrisVleck

Odessa Orlewicz (@LibertyTalk)

Website: https://LibertyTalkCanada.ca
Website: https://Librti.com/Odessa

Email: LibertyTalkCanada@gmail.com

FB: https://facebook.com/Odessa.Orlewicz
X: https://x.com/OdessaOrlewicz

Medium Platforms (100K+): Mid Probability

Laura-Lynn Thompson (@LauraLynn.tv)

Website: https://www.LauraLynn.tv/contact

Email: LauraLynnLive@gmail.com
Phone: 1-800-437-4356

FB: https://facebook.com/LauraLynnTylerThompson
X: https://x.com/LauraLynnTT

Tom Korski (@Blacklock’s Reporter)

Website: https://Blacklocks.ca/contact-us

Email: Tom@Blacklocks.ca
Phone: 1-613-992-6517

Large Platforms (1M+): Low Probability

Rebel News (@Rebel News)

Website: https://RebelNews.com/journalists

Email: Tips@RebelNews.com
Email: [FirstName]@RebelNews.ca (e.g. Sheila@…)

FB: https://facebook.com/joinRebelNews
X: https://x.com/RebelNewsOnline

Clayton & Natali Morris (@Redacted)

Website: https://Redacted.inc/contact-us

Email: Contact@Redacted.com

Public Interaction (Comments)

Please provide your thoughts – and any #MeToo situations, specifically listing the Errors that applied in your own Cases… (Full List in Home Page)

Subscribe now

Justice 4 EI Misconduct: Case Summary

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Last Updated: 2026-02-03 @1345h

Contact Info: J4EIM@outlook.com

This site chronicles the Legal Saga of one Canadian Citizen whose life was completely upended during the COVID-19 Pandemic, like thousands of other Canadian Families.

Many Careers & Personal Lives were crushed due to the ‘EI Misconduct’ label, bestowed despite the numerous legal & ethical problems underlying our situations.

Our Story is not unique – however our Fight is. We appear to be making the only Legal Case that challenges the explicit Unlawfulness of the entire process itself.

Please join us on our Journey. A legal victory for us is a win for all Canadians…

(Factum ¶7): This Case is not about the ‘reasonableness’ of my employer’s policies. It’s about their [un]Lawfulness – and the Rule of Law – which are the bedrock foundation of our legal system… (cf. CBoR: §Preamble)

#J4EIM: $13B E.I. Scandal in 2 Min. (Video Clips)

(Court Files & Presentations)

Public Interest Letters (Most Important)

Public Interest Letters: Sent to Government entities to express support.

Press Releases (Sharable Content)

Short, sharable materials that explain our Case to Interested Parties.

Public Relations (Sharable Content)

Public Relations Campaign: Pre-Written Content & Video Clips to Share.

Case Walk-Through: EI Claimant v. Canada (AG)

A brief, complete Journey through all the major Errors in our Case. (1:43 hr.)

Case Summary: EI Claimant v. Canada (AG)

Table of Contents

COVID-19 Pandemic: A Brief History of the 202nd Decade

Points at Issue: 12 Key Questions

Admin Law: Vavilov Reasonableness Review

This Case: Outline of Arguments

Problem #1: Legislative Intent & History

(#1) Rizzo Analysis: Employment Insurance Act

(Side-Bar) EIA: Statutory Amendments

Problem #2: Rule of Law, Jurisdiction & Logic

(#2) Tribunal Precedent (2023 SST 1032: CEIC v. AL)

(#3) Rule of Law & Jurisdiction

(#4) Private Law & Common Law

(#5) Internal Logic & Consistency

(Side-Bar) Publicly-Important Vaccine Data

Problem #3: Cited Inapplicable Case Law

(#6) Historical Cases & Abused Process

(Side-Bar) Redefinitions & Logic Errors

(#7) Current Jurisprudence

(Side-Bar) Curious Court Findings

Problem #4: Inconsistent Application of Law

(#8) My Case: Purolator Management

(#9) My Case: Purolator’s Falsified Evidence

(#10) My Case: CEIC Changed Terms & Facts

(#11) Many Cases: EI Adjudicators (CEIC/SST)

Problem #5: Use of Internal & Undisclosed Rules

(#12) Internal ‘BE-Memo’ Usurps Law

Problem #6: Precedent Error re. EI Program

(#13) EI Denied on ‘Tax-Payer’ Grounds

Problem #7: Atrium Templates Drive Decisions

(#14) Erroneous Templates ‘Engineer’ Decisions

(#15) Templates Control Decision-Making

Subscribe now

Justice 4 EI Misconduct: J4EIM Clips

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Disclaimer: The views of each Citizen do not necessarily reflect the views of others…

Last Updated: 2026-02-03 (@1245h)

As this Case (and time) progress, we will add various Clips & Shorts to this page…

We are including this for Subscribers who want access to our whole clip collection.
They are rough cuts that already include transcripts. For Sharing on Social Media.

We welcome feedback – and your own clips of our public material – surprise us…

J4EIM Case Summary

Elevator Pitch: $13B EI Scandal in 2 Min

https://rumble.com/v758ui8-clip-j4eim-case-13b-e.i.-scandal-in-2-minutes.html

Complete Walk-Through: Full Case Presentation

This informative, entertaining presentation explains the whole EI Scandal… (1:43 hr)

Media Channels

Rumble (Full)

https://rumble.com/J4EIM

Rumble (Clips)

https://rumble.com/J4EIMClips

YouTube (YT)

https://youtube.com/@Justice4EIMisconduct

J4EIM Clips (S4T & IVIM)

Part #1: Case Summary – About the J4EIM Project & Employment Insurance

Clip #1.1: It’s about the Rule of Law, Not Company Policies

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-1

Clip #1.2: Censorship, Sneaky Moves & Making E.I. Sweat

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-1

Clip #1.3: Unions, Mandates & Coordinated Injustice

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-1

Clip #3.1: Tribunal Problems, Unqualified Decision-Makers & EI Denials

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-3

Clip #3.2: Broken System: No Ties, No Training, No Justice

Warning: Contains Strong Language – A Raw Unfiltered Reaction to Unexpected Info

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-3

Clip #4.1: 41% ‘Mandate’ Cases: More than a ‘Fringe Minority’

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-4

Clip #4.2: Primary Pandemic Problem: Policy Trumps Law!

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-4

Clip #5.1: Legal Showdown: What Takes Precedent? Statutes or Policy?

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-5

Clip #7.1: Can Companies Write Their Own Laws‽

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-7

Clip #7.2: Real Problem: Process Engineering “Create Policy & F- Legislation”

Warning: Contains Strong Language – A Raw Unfiltered Reaction to Unexpected Info

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-7

Clip #7.3: ‘If They Lose’, J4EIM Supreme Court Path

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-7

Clip #11.1: Employers’ Claimed ‘Policies Trump Law’ in Pandemic

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-11

Clip #11.2: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Reshaped Society’s Minds

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-11

Clip #12.1: Landlord StoryTime: You Cannot ‘Contract-Out’ Legislation

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-12

Part #2: The ‘Problem’ – Understanding the E.I. Program, its Legislation & Legal Requirements

Clip #2.1: That Day Citizens’ Demanded Their MPs Obey the Law

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-2

Clip #2.2: Should Tribunals Follow the EI Act? (DESDA §64)

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-2

Clip #2.3: Hypocrisy in EI Decisions re. Mask Mandates

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-2

Clip #10.1: E.I. ‘Contrary to Law’ Analysis vs. Lock-Outs

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-10

Clip #10.2: Ontario’s Health Laws vs. COVID Reality

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-10

Clip #2.1: Controversy Sparked by ‘EI Disentitlement’ Reform (in 1993)

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/ivim-ei-case-presentation (@25:08)

Part #3: Their ‘Solution’ – How EI Processes were Engineered to Mass-Deny Claims

Clip #6.1: Real Story Behind the Weaponised ‘Misconduct Test’

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-6

Clip #6.2: Breaking Down the Illogical ‘Misconduct Test’

Warning: Contains Strong Language – A Raw Unfiltered Reaction to Unexpected Info

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-6

Clip #6.3: Jaw-Dropping, Raw Reaction to Understanding the EI Scandal

Warning: Contains Strong Language – A Raw Unfiltered Reaction to Unexpected Info

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-6

Clip #8.1: Choice or Coercion‽ (Pandemic ‘Policy Spin’)

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-8

Clip #9.1: CC §398: Falsification of Employment Records

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-9

Clip #9.2: COVID Policies, Leaves of Absence & Legal Consequences

Source: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-9

Learn More: J4EIM Case Info

Join Us: Share Your Concerns…

---

Support Our Project:    https://GiveSendGo.com/Justice-4-EI-Misconduct

Subscribe now

J4EIM: Press Releases

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Last Updated: 2026-01-23 @2230h

Contact Info: J4EIM@outlook.com

These are our Press Releases, which can be shared with anyone, to raise awareness about this major Case. Please send them to any independent Journalists & Podcasters you know to see if they are interested in discussing our precedent-setting Case.

This ‘EI Misconduct’ Scandal affected many thousands of Canadian Families:
We need to Educate & Active them if we want to obtain Justice from the Court.

If comfortable doing so, please CC: ‘J4EIM@outlook.com’ when sharing these PRs.

This will help us build out our network & ensure we do not ‘over-contact’ anyone…

P.R. #1: 2025-09-29 (Case Summary)

Introduction: a Summary of the major EI Errors that occurred during the pandemic.

We will publish two versions of most PRs: ‘Legal’ & ‘Simple’ ones – which remove the ‘legalese’, making it easier to understand for citizens unfamiliar with our legal system.

Legal Version

https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Press-Release-1.pdf

Simple Version

https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Press-Release-1S.pdf

For Immediate Release (Contact: J4EIM@outlook.com)

Self-Represented Citizen Challenges Canada’s E.I. System in Landmark Federal Court of Appeal Case

Niagara Region, ON – An important Case is now before the Federal Court of Appeal (Case #A-63-24). D.A. is taking on Canada’s Employment Insurance (EI) system without a lawyer (pro se). This case exposes the serious errors, engineered processes, and unfair denials that affected tens of thousands of Canadians during the pandemic.

Like numerous other workers, D.A. was placed on Unpaid Leave in Jan. 2022, for choosing not to share his private medical data per the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy (MVP). When he applied for EI Benefits, his Claim was Denied “due to his Misconduct” – a verdict he firmly rejects. Refusing to accept this injustice, he researched and started an appeal that has uncovered troubling revelations about how EI Decisions were made in these Cases.

Secret Changes to EI Rules: Freedom of Information requests revealed that in October 2021, the EI decision-making process was secretly changed, but only for workers who chose not to reveal their vaccination status or be forced into an unwanted medical procedure (BE-Memo 2021-10). For just these specific people, the EI Act was ignored, and legally-required tests and definitions were changed to enable mass Denials.

At the Social Security Tribunal (SST), EI Judges (TMs) used ‘Atrium Decision Templates’, with pre-written reasons that relied on conflicting case law with legal errors. Instead of investigating the personal circumstances of each Case, many Decisions were ‘reverse-engineered’ to Deny Benefits. In some situations, TMs even used Templates that contradicted their own past rulings, raising serious concerns about Procedural Fairness.

Twisted Legal Standards: The SST adopted a modified ‘Misconduct Test’ for MVP Cases, based on five abused historical EI Decisions and two logical fallacies, to avoid the ‘Just Cause’ Test that is required by the Employment Insurance Act (§29[c]). Since 1993, Parliament is clear: EI Applicants cannot be Denied Benefits when their Employers act ‘contrary to law’ or make one-sided, ‘significant changes’ to their work contracts.

Historical debates in the House of Commons & Parliamentary Committees created about 4,700 pages of Hansard transcripts, which confirm that the 14 ‘Just Cause’ Reasons listed in the EI Act are intended to protect workers in these exact situations. Yet, during the pandemic, this Just Cause investigation was intentionally avoided.

National Impact: Canadians filed 10 million EI Claims while vaccinations were promoted (Oct. ‘20 to May ‘23); this is half of the total 19 million workforce. Over two million claims were Denied, many using this redefined ‘Misconduct’ label, due to their Employer’s MVPs. Analysis estimates that paying out these Claims would have cost ~$13 billion – more than half of the EI Operating Account at the time (2024: EIOA Projections).

“This Case is about more than any one person’s Benefits,” said D.A. “It’s about exposing the system-wide process-engineering that denied struggling Canadians the EI Benefits they paid into and were legally entitled to receive. The law is clear – and no government decision-makers have the right to rewrite the law in secret.”

Call for Accountability: The Federal Court of Appeal now faces a defining moment: to decide whether the government truly upheld the law when processing MVP-specific EI Claims, or whether it trampled the rights of Canadians, by forcing a targeted group of Claimants into new, discriminatory, and error-filled processes.

This case makes Canada confront a defining question: will Fairness, Accountability & the Rule of Law win‽

###

P.R. #2: 2026-01-22 (Hearing Notice)

Introduction: Notice that the FCA has scheduled our Hearing. Registration Open.

https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Hearing-Notice.pdf

For Immediate Release (Contact: J4EIM@outlook.com)

The J4EIM Case now before the Federal Court of Appeal exposes a $13-billion Employment Insurance scandal that devastated the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians wrongly accused of ‘EI Misconduct’.

Under the banner of ‘pandemic response’, new EI decision-making processes were engineered across multiple federal agencies. These discriminatory processes – imposed using internal policy – led Decision-Makers to violate the EI Act by denying benefits to workers who were otherwise legally entitled to receive them.

Statutory legal requirements and long-settled case law were quietly overridden by a secret internal directive – the ‘BE-Memo (2021-10)’. Then, EI benefits were denied on a mass-scale using pre-written Decision Templates that misapplied case law and changed the Misconduct Test by inserting two fundamental logical errors.

This Case raises urgent issues of National Public Importance. Public attention and engagement are essential to ensure that judges and government officials fully confront and correct the systemic failures exposed by this case.

We cannot allow widespread administrative errors to be transformed into binding case law. Injustice must not become legal precedent. Canadians everywhere request Justice 4 EI Misconduct.

When: 2026-02-25 @930h (Wed.)

Where: FCA Toronto (or: Zoom)

https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Hearing

Case Walk-Through: (1:40 hr Podcast)

https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Presentation

Slides: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Slides

Resources: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Resources

YT: https://youtube.com/@Justice4EIMisconduct

Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/Justice4EIMisconduct

Press Releases: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR

Case Summaries: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Summaries

Take Action: Make Your Voice Heard Where It Counts:

https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Public-Interest

###

Public Interaction (Comments)

Please provide your thoughts – and any #MeToo situations, specifically listing the Errors that applied in your own Cases… (Full List in Home Page)

Subscribe now

Justice 4 EI Misconduct: Case Resources

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Last Updated: 2026-01-23 (@2230h)

Contact Info: J4EIM@outlook.com

As this Case (and time) progress, we will add various Resources to this page.

Court Documents

FCA: Affidavit (2024)

FCA: Factum (2025)

Media Channels

Rumble (Full)

https://rumble.com/J4EIM

Rumble (Clips)

https://rumble.com/J4EIMClips

YouTube (YT)

https://youtube.com/@Justice4EIMisconduct

Presentations

Intermediate: Complete Case Walk-Through

A complete & entertaining Journey through all the major Errors in our Case. (1:43 hr.)

This is our recommended method of learning about what really happened within Employment Canada (ESDC: SC, CEIC & SST) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After explaining the ‘big-picture’ – and examining how E.I. is supposed to work – we provide short Summaries about How & Why each step was ‘engineered’ for Denials.

The Notes for each Chapter contain references to supporting Arguments & Evidence…

Long-Form: Detailed Case Explanation

This lengthy two-part series (5h) provides a comprehensive walk through our Case, giving a detailed look at the various Problems, Errors & Abuses that occurred within the EI Program during the Pandemic. (Specifically re. ‘Mandate Misconduct’ Claims)

Part #1 explains ‘The Problem’: What does the EI Act require from Decision-Makers? Complying would have meant paying out ~$13B – which would collapse the Program…

Part #2 examines ‘Their Solution’: How did Canada avoid paying this $13B? Various EI processes were ‘engineered’ across Agencies & imposed on Adjudicators via policy. Most of them did not even realise that they were breaking the law by ‘following policy’…

Stand4Thee: Episode #3 (2025-08-29)

Part 1 (S4T: Episode #3): Section #1 outlines the 15 Errors in this Case and lays out the detailed statutory foundation governing Employment Insurance adjudication.

Section #2 explores Parliamentary Hansards (Transcripts) to document the History underlying the most contentious ‘temporary’ Program change in EI History, which caused protests, riots & arrests – and provoked construction projects to ‘install back-doors’ at EI Offices across Canada.

Section #3 documents the government’s Legislative Intent about this EI Change. Cabinet Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries & EI Directors all explained their Intentions ‘on-the-record’. They were unequivocal: The primary basis upon which Claimants could be Disentitled from EI is ‘Just Cause’ Analysis – regularly conducted before the Pandemic – but unlawfully rejected in ‘Mandate Misconduct’-related Claims.

Stand4Thee: Episode #4 (2025-09-05)

Part 2 (S4T: Episode #4): Section #1 reviews ‘Just Cause’ (from Part #1) and explores the EI Adjudication process from Employment Separation through Judicial Review in the Federal Court system.

Section #2 examines the various Problems, Errors & Abuses that were engineered at each step in the EI Adjudication process, detailing how rampant workflow injustices were designed & imposed on Decision-Makers at each stage, to ensure Benefits Denial.

Section #3 studies the ‘Atrium’ Decision Templates that permitted Adjudicators (‘TMs’) to ‘Reverse-Engineer’ desired Outcomes. When crafting their Decisions, Atrium (the SST Case-Management tool) inserts pre-written ‘templated’ Arguments, which direct the final Outcome, based on Templates with legally-conflicting Reasons. This enables ‘selection’ of the Templates necessary to always Deny EI Benefits to otherwise Qualified Claimants – even when these Reasons contradict previous Decisions from the same TMs.

Short-Form: Summary Case Explanation

This short two-part series provides a brief Summary of our Case, giving a high-level overview of the various Problems, Errors & Abuses that occurred within the EI Program during the Pandemic. (Specifically re. ‘Mandate Misconduct’ Claims)

Stand4Thee: Episode #1 (2025-07-18)

Chapter 1: Case Overview & Censorship Attempts

Chapter 2: E.I. Legislation (EI Act & DESDA)

Chapter 3: Tribunal & [Atrium] Templates

Chapter 4: SST Stats & Internal ‘BE-Memo’

Chapter 5: Abuse of Case Law (Procedural Fairness)

Chapter 6: Erroneous ‘Misconduct Test’ (Logical Fallacies)

Chapter 7: Questions (Q&A: Part 1)

Stand4Thee: Episode #2 (2025-08-01)

Chapter 8: Case Review & Consistency (Choice or Coercion?)

Chapter 9: Falsified ROEs (CC §398) & CEIC Changing Facts

Chapter 10: Employment Insurance & Jurisdiction Questions

Chapter 11: Laws & Contracts (Management Rights, Leaves & Lock-Outs)

Chapter 12: Case Study: CEIC v. AL (2023 SST 1032 <= 2022 SST 1428)

Chapter 13: Questions (Q&A: Part 2)

Chapter 14: Questions (Q&A: Part 3)

---

Support Our Project:    https://GiveSendGo.com/Justice-4-EI-Misconduct

This post highlights the Government of Canada Policy on ‘Auto-DM’ (Automated Decision Making) which forms [some of] the legal basis for the [SST] Tribunal’s Atrium ‘Decision Templates’… (Brought to you from our TBS: Treasury Board Secretariat)

On what grounds can important legal questions and decisions be made entirely via AI/ML? Who is ultimately responsible for them? What happens when they’re wrong‽

Notes is a new space on Substack for us to share links, short posts, quotes, photos, and more. I plan to use it for things that don’t fit in the newsletter, like work-in-progress or quick questions.

Go to Notes

How to join

Head to substack.com/notes or find the “Notes” tab in the Substack app. As a subscriber to Justice 4 EI Misconduct, you’ll automatically see my notes. Feel free to like, reply, or share them around!

You can also share notes of your own. I hope this becomes a space where every reader of Justice 4 EI Misconduct can share thoughts, ideas, and interesting quotes from the things we're reading on Substack and beyond.

Why Substack Notes

Fellow writers and readers are spending time in Notes for a variety of reasons.

Ted Gioia sees Notes as a forum for dialogue.

The idea behind Notes is simple. Millions of people now participate in Substack as writers and readers—but much of this is built on long articles and essays. We now have a forum for dialoguing and sharing shorter posts.

Chris Ryan is drawn to Substack as an alternative for legacy social media.

One of my main reasons for joining Substack was to wean myself off exploitative social media platforms. I’m hoping this is going to help move us along on that journey!

Sherman Alexie wants to create a kind and creative new space in Notes.

I’m going to focus on being positive, with my own thoughts and photos and by linking to songs, stories, poems from around the web and from other Substacks.

If you encounter any issues, you can always refer to the Notes FAQ for assistance. Looking forward to seeing you there!

Go to Notes

Chapters & Evidence

(Slide Deck): https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/(Presentations)/J4EIM-IVIM-2512.pdf

Part #1: Case Summary (30 min) – About the J4EIM Project & Employment Insurance (2025-12-11)

(§1.1) [00:00]: J4EIM: About the Project – Justice 4 EI Misconduct (Our Case, People & Goals)

A brief Introduction to J4EIM: Who we are, how we got here, what we want & where we are going.

J4EIM Home Page: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com

Court Files & Presentations: https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/p/resources

Press Releases: https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/p/press-releases

Podcast: https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/podcast

YT Channel: https://youtube.com/@Justice4EIMisconduct

(§1.2) [5:07]: Case Summary: Fundamental Premises Underlying the COVID-19 Pandemic & Immunisation Mandates

A short Summary that examines What Happened during the Pandemic – and How Everyone Responded to the Emergency.

Big Idea: Companies granted themselves the right to break the law, merely by issuing corporate policy saying so. (Policy over the Law)

    YT: https://youtu.be/sxNnpCribyg

(§1.3) [9:38]: Key Questions: Short List of Major Problems that Broke the Rule of Law & Violated the Integrity of our EI Program

Points at Issue: Our List of Key Legal Questions underlying our Case that we are asking the Court to Answer for all Canadians.

(§1.4) [12:43]: Root Cause Analysis: How did Employment Canada Orchestrate this $13B Scandal & How did it Survive this long? (5+ Years)

How did ESDC Engineer & Execute their ‘COVID-19 Mandate Misconduct’ (C19-MM) Program? How did they ‘get away’ with it [so far]?

Root Cause Analysis: (Time: @18:15 min)
https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/case-summary-video?timestamp=1095

        YT: https://youtu.be/sxNnpCribyg?t=1095s

(§1.5) [16:54]: Process Engineering: How were the EI Benefits Decision-Making Processes Changed Across Multiple ESDC Agencies?

A brief look at the EI Benefits Adjudication Process, examining how it was changed at critical points throughout the Case History.

J4EIM Resources: Problem Summaries:
https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/i/168756515/short-form-summary-case-explanation

(§1.6) [21:26]: Impact of C19-MM Scandal: How Many Lives were Destroyed? How Much Money was Denied to Lawful Claimants?

A short Summary of EI & SST Statistics, to quantify the Impact & Damage this Scandal caused to Innocent Canadians.

Big Idea: [E.I.] 1M+ Extra EI Denials, 65% More Often. [SST] C19 Mandates Doubled the SST Case Load. 37%+ of All Cases were Denied for ‘Mandate Misconduct’. (We are Not a ‘Fringe Minority’ [with ‘Unacceptable Views’])

    YT: https://youtu.be/uTuuFo7QH34

    Lex Acker: Financial Analysis (SubStack Post)

Truth and Freedom

Employment Insurance Commission Defrauded Canadians By At Least $12.9 Billions

“Fraud involves intentional deception or misrepresentation to gain an unfair or dishonest advantage. It often involves deceit, manipulation, or false information to obtain financial or personal benefits. … Abuse refers to the misuse or excessive use of something in a way that is harmful or goes beyond its intended purpose…

Read more

2 years ago · 19 likes · 3 comments · Lex Acker

(§1.7) [25:08]: ESDC ‘Solution’: Considering How Big Their ‘Problem’ Was (400K+ Claimants, $12B+ Liability), How Did They Avoid EI Collapse?

Big Idea: Long-Settled EI Adjudication Processes were ‘Engineered’ & EI ADMs were Incentivised & Coerced to Break the EI Act.

How? The EI Act was Overridden by a Secret ‘BE-Memo’ [2021-10] and Decision Templates that Miscited Case Law & ‘Abused Processes’ using Pre-Written Reasons + a Modified ‘Misconduct Test’ containing two Logical Fallacies.

J4EIM Resources: Problem Summaries:
https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/i/168756515/short-form-summary-case-explanation

(§1.8) [27:38]: Censorship Attempts: Once Our Evidence & Arguments were Submitted, Someone Tried to Silence Us using a [Cancelled] Confidentiality Order

Big Idea: When ‘Considered In-Full’, the Evidence & Arguments we present Somehow Threatens People in Power – [some] who are willing to Break the Rules to Silence Us.

    J4EIM Podcast: Chapter 1 (Time: @7:44 min)
    https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-1?timestamp=464

    YT: https://youtu.be/iRcOkqwQeYM?t=458s

Part #2: The ‘Problem’ (21 min) – Understanding the E.I. Program, its Legislation & Legal Requirements (2025-12-11)

(Slide Deck): https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/(Presentations)/J4EIM-IVIM-2512.pdf

(§2.1) [30:05]: J4EIM: Overview of J4EIM Resources

A brief Introduction to J4EIM: Our SubStack, Resources, Media & PR Materials.

    Podcast: https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/podcast

    YT Channel: https://youtube.com/@Justice4EIMisconduct

(§2.2) [31:30]: E.I. Law (Part #1): Legislative History & Intent (EI Act & DESDA). What Does the Law Require during EI Benefits Adjudication?

Looking at our Rizzo Analysis (Study of Legislative Intent & History) of the EI Act §29(c): ‘Just Cause’ Analysis

Big Idea: Completely Denying EI Claimants All Benefits (instead of Imposing Penalties) was the most Controversial Change in EI History. (It provoked widespread ‘Public Outrage’ & Required Key Amendments to ‘Protect Workers’ having ‘Just Cause’.)

    YT: https://youtu.be/S-qudPv85aU

(§2.3) [40:07]: E.I. Law (Part #2): Statutory Interpretation (EI Act & DESDA). What Does the Law Require during EI Benefits Adjudication?

Looking at our Rizzo Analysis (Study of Legislative Intent & History) of the EI Act §29(c): ‘Just Cause’ Analysis

Big Idea: Just Cause Analysis (Examining whether the ‘Employer Acted Contrary to Law’ or made ‘Significant Changes’ to the Employment Contract) is Required, even in situations where the Employer Alleges Worker Misconduct.

    YT: https://youtu.be/S-qudPv85aU

(§2.4) [45:52]: Legal Principles: What Factors must be Considered when Determining EI Benefits Eligibility? What was Done Prior to the Pandemic?

A Brief Summary of the various Legal Principles & Considerations involved when Adjudicating EI Benefits Claims.

    YT: https://youtu.be/nPcUprZkjwY

    YT: https://youtu.be/1cuLew1n6pc

Part #3: Their ‘Solution’ [53 min (23+20)] – How EI Processes were Engineered to Mass-Deny Claims (2025-12-18)

(Slide Deck): https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/(Presentations)/J4EIM-IVIM-2512.pdf

    Podcast: https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/podcast

    YT Channel: https://youtube.com/@Justice4EIMisconduct

(§3.1) [50:26]: EI Benefits Adjudication: The Complete Process from End-to-End

A Look at the EI Benefits Application Process from Beginning to End (from: Employment Separation to Appellate Judicial Review [FCA])

Big Idea: [Some] Senior Leadership at Employment Canada had to Engineer every Step in the EI Process to Prevent Complete Program Collapse

SST: EI Appeal Process: https://sst-tss.gc.ca/en/your-appeal/employment-insurance-appeal-process-glance

(§3.2) [51:34]: Records of Employment (ROEs): Legislation & Guidance from Employment Canada (ESDC)

An Overview of Official Laws & Rules about Records of Employment (Including Mandate-Specific Instructions)

Big Idea: It is a Criminal Offence to Knowingly, Intentionally Miscode ROEs, the Only Sworn Evidence (at: Service Canada & EI Commission)

    YT: https://youtu.be/cE0W0c0OMBA

Criminal Code §398: Falsifying Employment Records:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-398.html

[ESDC] ROE Guide (Box 16 & 22):
https://canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/roe-guide.html

[ESDC] ROEs During COVID-19 (Archive):
https://web.archive.org/web/20241126215225/https:/www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/ei-employers.html#h2.02

(§3.3) [58:12]: BE-Memo (2021-10): ‘EI Eligibility & Refusal to Comply with Mandatory Vaccination Policy’

Examination of the Discriminatory BE-Memo [2021-10] that coerced EI Decision-Makers (ADMs) to Break the EI Act

Big Idea: Service Canada & EI Commission ADMs were Coerced to Break the Law by a Secret Policy Memo that Only Applied to C19-MM Claims. (Vaccine Mandate Cases)

BE-Memo [2021-10]: (Memo: SC & CEIC)
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/5-BEMemo/EI-OPSD-BEMemo.pdf

Lex Acker: Evidence (ATIPs & Affidavit)
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/5-BEMemo/Lex-Acker-Affidavit.pdf

    Lex Acker: (SubStack Post Explaining BE-Memo ATIP Process)

Truth and Freedom

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

Introduction…

Read more

3 years ago · 6 likes · 1 comment · Lex Acker

    J4EIM Podcast: Chapter 4: (Time: @7:57 min)
    https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-4?timestamp=477

    YT: https://youtu.be/uTuuFo7QH34?t=477s

(§3.4) [1:02:24]: Changing Facts: How the EI Commission Avoided Losing Their Case at the Tribunal (SST)

The CEIC Changed Facts in Their Case, Claiming that Their Own Prior Decisions were ‘Clerical Errors’.

Big Idea: Changing Facts is Potentially a Sanctionable Offence in Legal Proceedings.

    J4EIM Podcast: Chapter 9: (Time: @6:44 min)
    https://blog.justice4eimisconduct.com/p/j4eim-s4t-ei-part-9?timestamp=404

    YT: https://youtu.be/cE0W0c0OMBA?t=404s

(§3.5) [1:06:50]: Atrium Decision Templates (Part #1): The Tribunal’s Internal Case Management Tools Use Pre-Written Decisions

An Overview of Atrium Decision Templates: Their History, Current Requirements & Problems They Cause Adjudicators.

Big Idea: EI Decisions are ‘Built’ using blocks of Prewritten Reasons, Case Citations & Footnotes that Direct the Outcome.

    YT: https://youtu.be/pgkxO1lBSGY

(§3.6) [1:12:46]: Abuse of Process: Misusing Historical EI Cases to Override the EI Act §29(c).

A Look at How Past EI Decisions were [Mis]Cited to Justify Not Conducting Just Cause ‘Contrary to Law’ Analysis.

Big Idea: Abuse of Process is Potentially a Sanctionable Offence in Legal Proceedings.

    YT: https://youtu.be/hGPKNMsTfZQ

(§3.7) [1:17:37]: Logical Fallacies: How the ‘Misconduct Test’ was Modified to Override the EI Act §29(c).

Examining how the ‘4-Part Misconduct’ was Changed with Two Logical Fallacies to Avoid ‘Contrary to Law’ Analysis

Big Idea: Our Supreme Court Holds that ‘Logical Fallacies’ are Unreasonable. (Vavilov ¶104)

    YT: https://youtu.be/7WOzsknoqcM

(§3.8) [1:25:56]: Atrium Decision Templates (Part #2): How Templates are Used to ‘Reverse-Engineer Outcomes’ for EI Benefits

A Practical Examination of Contradictory Atrium Templates. (Citing the ‘KVP’ Case: re. Unilaterally Imposed Policies)

Big Idea: Our Supreme Court Holds that ‘Reverse-Engineering Outcomes’ is Unreasonable. (Vavilov ¶121)

    YT: https://youtu.be/pgkxO1lBSGY

(§3.9) [1:33:40]: ‘TaxPayer’ Error: 160+ EI Denials Based on Judges’ Misunderstanding about How the EI Program is Funded

A Brief Mention of SST & FC Decisions Denying EI because the “TaxPayers Should Not Pay for an Employer’s LawBreaking.”

Big Idea: ‘Obiter Dicta’ from Erroneous Case Law about EI Funding is being Cited as Precedent to Deny Benefits.

(§3.10) [1:35:45]: Closing Thoughts (Next Steps): Public Interest Letters, Public Interviews & Parliamentary Petition

A Quick List of Easy Actions We can Take to Fix this Injustice for All Canadians. (Contact Courts & Ministers)

Big Idea: We Can Cause Change by Sharing Our Concerns about this Major EI Scandal with our Public Servants

Press Releases (PR): https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/press-releases

PIL: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/p/public-interest-working-group

Resources

All Chapters: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/podcast

J4EIM Home

Note: We know there are mistakes in the auto-generated Captions. We do plan to manually correct each episode to ensure the Transcripts match our Intentions.

Subscribe now

Internal ‘BE-Memo’ (Justice 4 EI Misconduct)

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Legal Principles: Problem #5 (Use of Internal & Undisclosed Rules)

Fundamental Questions (1): #10

Grounds of Review (1): FCA §18.1(4)(b)

Vavilov Principles (4): Process & Outcome

• Fairness Principle & Meaningful Reasons

• (d) Evidence Before the Decision Maker

• (e) Submissions of the Parties

• (f) Past Practices & Past Decisions

Transparency is a fundamental tenant of Reasonableness. It is both Unfair & explicitly:

“Unacceptable for ADMs to […] expect that its Decision would be upheld on the basis of internal records that were not available to that party.” (Vavilov [¶95])

Facts & Issues

Internal Rules: Can EI ADMs rely on Confidential Internal Rules? Are they subject to Disclosure or Discoverability? Can this be Overruled? Is this Vavilov-Compliant?

Important Clarification: I am not relying on Lex Acker’s blog post – nor am I submitting any arguments related to his ‘conspiracy’ concerns or other potential claims of mal-intent. This is strictly about the Fairness of allowing “internal records that [a]re not available to that party” – binding policies that are only discoverable & obtainable through a complex, time-consuming legal process that requires multiple ATIPs – to determine the outcome of EI Benefits Claims. 

(NB: I want to be explicitly clear: When discussing the ‘BE-Memo’, I am not claiming personal discrimination, collusion, or any other problems with any specific person involved in my Case. This is about the Fairness of the process itself. ATIPs, which provide a legal ‘chain-of-custody’, clearly prove that SC/EI & CEIC Agents are bound by an internal policy – one that targets a specific class of [C19-MM] Claimants – and redefines settled definitions & changes long-established adjudication processes when deciding their specific Claims.)

On 2021-10-19, Service Canada’s ‘Business Expertise’ Unit [ISB: ‘BE-EI’] (Leadership) – with the authority of the ‘EI Operational Policy Service Desk’ (‘OPSD’) – published an internal ‘memo’ (‘BE-2021-10’) to the ‘Policies’ portal of the ‘EI Online Reference Tool’ (ORT). Its full title was the: “EI Eligibility & Refusal to Comply with Mandatory Vaccination Policy” (or ‘BE Memo’). This internal ‘policy’ purported to provide “guidance [to] all staff involved in the processing of claims” (p.7) for a specific subset of Claimants – only those who “refus[ed] to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy.” (pp.1,7)

This internal policy provided new Definitions (i.e. ‘Just Cause’ & ‘exceptional circumstances’ [p.1-2], ‘suspended’ [p.3-4] & ‘availability’ [p.4-5], etc.) and different Processes & Procedures (‘Fact-Finding’ [p.6-7] & determining the validity of Medical & Religious Exemptions [p.5-6]) that only applied to this specific subset of EI Claimants.

Despite being a binding ‘policy’, the BE Memo opened with a legal disclaimer: that “Th[is] memorandum is not linked to any legislative or regulatory amendments.” (What possible purpose – other than for future indemnification – could this notice serve‽)

Since this ‘memo’ self-admittedly contained no legal foundation, on what basis could it be published as an official ‘policy’? By what authority? These Definitions & Processes are already defined by statute, regulation & precedence (in that order). This fact alone should legally invalidate the BE Memo – and every Decision based upon it.

This raises several crucial questions that should be answered before relying on it:

1. Who specifically authored this BE Memo?

2. Who specifically authorised its enforcement?

3. Why was it an unpublished internal memo?

4. Why only apply to specific Claimants, not all?

Authorities

Here are some unreasonable changes to established Definitions & Processes:

1. Voluntary Leaving (BE Memo: p.2-3)

   “In the context of a mandatory vaccination policy, an employee would not have Just Cause to voluntarily leave their employment unless they left due to exceptional circumstances.”

   What is the legal basis for this policy change? Just Cause is already defined in statute. There is no ‘exceptional circumstances’ enhancement that only applies to selective Claimants. This is beyond patently unreasonable…

   (Alternatively: Is a global pandemic not ‘exceptional circumstances’? Or mandating experimental medical treatments upon 8B people? Or withholding livelihoods? My AD TM conceded “the exceptional circumstances created by the pandemic.”) 1

   “Some clients could argue that a new Mandatory Vaccination Policy is a major change in the Terms or Conditions of Employment and their Duties. The Just Cause exception is usually used in the context of changes that have a direct impact on the work and therefore the employee had no other choice than to leave their employment (i.e., reduction of hours, change in the shifts, direct change in work duties). A Mandatory Vaccination Policy may not change an employee's specific Duties but merely changes the work environment and therefore an employee who voluntarily left employment because of a refusal to be vaccinated may not have had Just Cause.”

   ‘May not’ is clearly conditional, based upon Fact-Finding. Purolator’s own policies & communique repeatedly states this was a ‘Condition of Employment’ 2 – one they knew they could not enforce via policy. 3 (cf. Problem #4: Purolator Management) Furthermore, the term ‘work environment’ is an invented term in this context that has no legal precedence or significance. It is an HR Term that refers to the ‘company culture’ & social conditions – or physical hazards on a factory floor – not changing workers’ personal medical health (internal biological ‘environment’) by requiring multiple irreversible injections of experimental mRNA ‘gene therapy’ immunisations.

   In order to properly determine that a client had Just Cause for voluntarily leaving their employment, thorough fact-finding must be conducted and documented to support the existence of exceptional circumstances. It would be insufficient to rely only on a client’s statement.”

   Where does this ‘exceptional circumstances’ requirement come from? The statute requires ‘no reasonable alternatives’. Involuntary Lock-Outs resulting from non-compliance with an unlawful policy – coercive medical mandates – is exactly ‘no alternative’. ‘Employer acting contrary to law’ is Just Cause by law. (EIA §29[c][xi])

    

2. Suspension or Dismissal (BE Memo: p.3)

   “Even if a policy was implemented after the employee was hired, the application of the policy could be viewed as reasonable in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

   Since when is it ‘reasonable’ to investigate the ‘application’ of a policy, but refuse to examine the policy itself? This is nonsensical & clearly designed to limit requisite Fact-Finding. Besides, the application is problematic anyways: enforcing new, anti-contractual policies that unions have not ratified is ‘applying’ it – regardless of the policy’s content. The ‘application’ is a clear ‘breach of contract’. And ‘Could be?’ There is no discretion in the statutory requirement to Fact-Find for Just Cause. This isn’t about the policy’s reasonableness. It’s about Just Cause – whether the ‘employer acted contrary to law’ or made ‘significant changes’ to the Employment Contract. cf. EIA §29(c)(xi/vii/ix)

    

3. Leave of Absence (BE Memo: p.3-4)

   “The EI Legislation provides for Clients to be Disentitled from receiving Benefits if they have taken a voluntary leave of absence from their employment without Just Cause. To prove Just Cause, Clients must show that they had ‘no reasonable alternative’ but to take a Leave from their employment.”

   This definition intentionally [mis]conflates ‘Voluntary Leaving’ with ‘Taking Leave’ which are two separate conditions in the Just Cause clause. An approved ‘Admin Leave of Absence’ is ‘Taking Leave’.

   “For employers that choose to place employees on Leave Without Pay rather than imposing a Termination or Suspension for Misconduct, the Leave Without Pay could be considered equivalent to a Suspension, if the reason for the Leave Without Pay was non-compliance with the mandatory vaccination policy.”

   On what Grounds? By what Authority? Employers had the option of Disciplining & Suspending non-compliant workers. Some chose to do so. Most didn’t for obvious liability reasons.

   By mid-2022, Labour Arbitrators established the precedent that any Disciplinary Enforcement (Suspensions & Termination) for Non-Compliance was unreasonable under the ‘minimally impairing’ doctrine. 4

   “…beyond what is strictly necessary to accomplish its aims” (FireFighters: ¶263ff)

   and “less intrusive on the employee [] than fixing [their] record with a significant discipline.” (id. ¶313)

   Additionally, our own Grievance Arbitration also deemed this specific policy ultimately unreasonable (from: 2022-07-01) per the ‘proportionality’ doctrine. (Glass: [¶285-88]) 5

   It is also logically & legally inconsistent to equate ‘Admin Leave’ with ‘Suspension for Misconduct’. They are legally distinct. One is an Administratively Approved function that makes no mention of Misconduct, whereas, by definition, Suspension is the natural result of proven Misconduct – something which requires Fact-Finding.

    

4. Fact-Finding (BE Memo: p.6-7)

   “The Decision-maker is responsible for ensuring that Fact-Finding is complete before making a decision. ‘Complete’ means that all facts necessary to make a sound decision have been obtained and are included in the Claims file. [] In the case of a refusal to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy, fact-finding is essential for understanding the file. Certain elements must be on file: {Specific MVP-Only List}”

   By stating that ‘complete means’, this policy is explicitly redefining the pre-existing Statutory & Common Law definitions & processes involved. The list of Fact-Finding requirements that follows only lists policy-centric evidence. There is no mention of Contracts, despite being mentioned multiple times in the DBEP (§21.2.2) – and all throughout six years of documented historical precedent – in a policy that only applies to specific Claimants. (¶78,81, ¶118-20, ¶124, ¶294, FN-123f)

    

5. Processes & Procedures (BE Memo: p.7)

   “Processes & procedures in regards to EI Eligibility and the refusal to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy are available in the ORT. We ask that you share this guidance with all staff involved in the processing of Claims. Questions regarding this policy should be directed to Regional Business Expertise who may refer questions to the EI OPSD as appropriate. To streamline the analysis process, all questions must be accompanied by ‘complete fact-finding’ and a recommendation from the region.”

   ‘All Staff’ are required to comply with a policy that targets specific Claimants. Any questions about ‘process analysis’ require Agents to conduct ‘complete fact-finding’ as defined in this policy – not the historically, statutorily-defined processes. And non-compliance can result in Case escalations to the OPSD Management Team. This implies that Managerial Authority can be invoked when Agents follow the precedental pre-COVID Definitions & Processes – as opposed to these new discriminatory ones. By definition, treating one arbitrarily-selected group differently – or using different legal definitions and processes – is ‘discrimination.’ No ‘wrong’ ‘intent’ is required.

    

6. Other Problems: Medical & Religious Exemptions (BE Memo: p.5-6)

   “In some cases the employer could refuse to accept a medical certificate because it does not meet the conditions of the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy.”

   Since when does the ‘condition’ (read: opinion) of an HR Manager overrule the medical advice of a licensed, professional medical doctor? Similar arguments apply to the BE Memo’s attempt to override constitutionally-defined Religious protections.

Argumentation

As shown above, the BE Memo – which was enforced as an internal policy – targeted a specific sub-group of EI Claimants, creating new legal Definitions & Adjudication Procedures that must be followed when processing their Claims. This is precisely the dictionary definition of ‘discrimination’ – one based on “internal records that were not available to that party.” This is clearly deemed unreasonable per Vavilov.

Primarily: Leaves of Absence were explicitly [mis]conflated with Suspensions. Thousands of workers were put on Admin Leaves – not Disciplinary Suspensions – a policy option intentionally chosen by Employers after their own internal legal analysis. There was no legal basis to change facts (what Employers clearly stated) – what existing statute & precedent required – to enforce new Claim adjudication definitions & processes.

There were many business reasons for choosing to place workers on Leave – which maintained the employment relationship while the mandates were in place – something understood to be temporary in nature. There were also many legal reasons for using Admin Leaves instead of Suspensions, which invoke Disciplinary sections in Contracts.

(COVID-era Arbitral Precedence has deemed Suspensions ‘unreasonable’ for being ‘more excessive than necessary’ using Oakes & Irving Analyses. It is a factual error to arbitrarily change Employee Status from Approved Leave to Disciplinary Suspension.)

This is an undisclosed internal, binding ‘Benefits Eligibility’ (read: Adjudication) policy that targets a specific group of Claimants – only those who “refuse to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy.” This ‘Process & Procedure’ document ‘guides’ EI Case Workers through a custom decision-tree that results in findings of ineligibility at virtually every branch, by undermining established statutory definitions & processes – and creating new precedent. If this discriminatory ‘policy’ was not bad enough already, Claims Agents were warned that questions or non-compliance could result in referrals to Management.

This Policy covertly inverted ‘Benefit of Doubt’: Instead of workers being granted [justified] caution re. new, experimental medical technologies – while pre-existing, non-mandate policies were already effective – the concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ was invented with an undefined Burden of Proof that was almost impossible to meet. This subtly assigned Benefit of the Doubt to the Employer, which violates EIA §49(2).

The statutorily-mandated Fact-Finding process for Just Cause was also changed to remove all reference to – and analysis of – employment contracts, which was long-required by the DBEP (under precedental interpretation of EIA §51.) This invented legal concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ also removed the necessity to factor the 14 Just Cause Reasons codified in the EI Act, including §29(c)(xi/vii/ix). (& Arguably [‘x/xiii’])

Although clearly discriminatory, I am not arguing ‘Discrimination’. I am arguing the fundamental unfairness & unreasonableness of compelling EI Claims Agents to use different – and completely novel – definitions & processes when adjudicating Claims. New adjudication practices that undermine publicly-defined, historically-established ones found in statute & precedent – using internal policies that only apply to selected Claimants, listed in documents only available through obscure ATIP litigation.

Application

Creating special, binding policies – with new Tests & Definitions – that only target specific groups of Claimants violates ‘Procedural Fairness’ per FCA §18.1(4)(b).

Keeping these targeted Policies internal & unpublished – until after Claimants litigate multiple ATIPs – also violates ‘Procedural Fairness’ per FCA §18.1(4)(b).

This also violates the Vavilov ‘internal records’ reasonableness factor. (¶95)

Decision

We respectfully ask this Court to Quash this Decision as being Unreasonable. Specifically, SC-EI & CEIC Case Agents were bound by internal, undisclosed policy documents that ‘guided’ them through Decision-making processes that were different from the publicly-documented ones. They used novel Tests & Definitions that do not appear anywhere in established EI Statutes, Policies & Case Law. Decision ‘Processes & Procedures’ that only target a specific sub-group of Claimants – ‘C19-MM’ Cases.

Internal Rules: We need Clarity & Consistency around How & When Undisclosed Internal Policies can be applied to EI Decisions. At minimum, anything Internal that is determinative to the Decision should be Disclosed, so that it can be examined for any Legal Errors. This directly impacts the ‘Coherent Reasoning’ and ‘Meaningful Reasons’ factors defined in Vavilov.

Sources:

BE-2021-10 (‘BE-Memo’): EI Eligibility & Refusal to Comply with a Mandatory Vaccination Policy
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/5-BEMemo/EI-OPSD-BEMemo.pdf

Lex Acker Affidavit (BE-Memo ATIPs):
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/5-BEMemo/Lex-Acker-Affidavit.pdf

Subscribe now

J4EIM: AIN Tribunal Legally Declares ‘mRNA Injections’ to be ‘Bio-Weapons’

Lede: On Oct. 8 (2025), a landmark Decision (AIN #1198-25) by the AIN Tribunal (Alliance of Indigenous Nations International Tribunal) legally declared ‘COVID-19 mRNA Injections’ to be ‘Biological Weapons’ under relevant laws. (CA / US / UN)

Full Decision: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/(External)/AIN/[251008]-AIN-BioWeapon-Declaration.pdf

Original Press Release

AIN Newsletter (Alliance of Indigenous Nations)

AIN Home: https://AllianceOfIndigenousNations.org

https://mailchi.mp/allianceofindigenousnations/breaking-news-the-first-tribunal-court-in-the-world-to-issue-a-declaration-that-mrna?e=2b33e9f4cb

Public Reporting

Dr. David Speicher: CourageousTruth (SS: @DrDavidSpeicher)

Dr. Joseph Sansone: Mind Matters & Everything Else (SS: @JosephSansone)

Lawyer Lisa: SubStack Notes (SS: @LawyerLisa)

Global Research: AIN Tribunal Issues Order: ‘mRNA Injections are BioWeapons’

Summary: Declaration of the A.I.N. International Tribunal (AIN #1198-25)

This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ meet the criteria of Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction, according to the Biological Weapons Anti Terrorism Act (1989), 18 USC § 175; Weapons & Firearms § 790.166 (Fla. Stat. 2023), Canada‘s Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act (2004), and the International Biological Weapons Convention.

The AIN Tribunal finds that the application of biological and technological weapons of mass destruction with gene-editing and nanotechnology and transhumanist additions will result and has resulted in a genocide.

Mankind has been living in the most powerful of delusions – that murder by government, or NGOs, or international corporate oligarchy could ever rest on any moral principle. The fundamental purpose of law is to seek the truth and provide for justice.

The Tribunal finds that these bioweapons: COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections were constructed by colonial powers to be deployed universally on mankind and on our original peoples as a priority group.

As such colonial systems have only served to perpetuate the injustice of what can only be seen as a planned and executed murder and depopulation of mankind around the world. The lack of justice in colonial systems must be seen as by design and to further the application and deployment of bioweapons on the public.

We find there is a consequential degeneracy in the intrinsic value of mankind by those who have and continue to promulgate the application of weapons of mass destruction on humanity.

We ask the original peoples and rest of mankind to stand together to give this decision and declaration the force of morality and justice – which is the basis of any system of law. There can be no architecture of law that is a permissive grant to deploy bioweapons on mankind.

Upon review of expert evidence and published peer reviewed articles […] this Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, are in fact Biological and Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This Order and Declaration is intended to have immediate worldwide effect.

AIN Tribunal: Full Order (AIN #1198-25) (Dated: 2025-10-08)

Full Order: Declaration of the A.I.N. International Tribunal (AIN #1198-25)

Alliance of Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal

https://AllianceOfIndigenousNations.org || (Tribunal@AllianceOfIndigenousNations.org)

Demand: AIN #1198-25
Turtle Island Record
October 8, 2025

Declaration of the A.I.N. International Tribunal

WHEREAS the relationship between CANADA and the Un-surrendered Indigenous People is still Nation-to-Nation per: Calder et al v. British Columbia (AG) (1973 SCC 4), R. v. Sioui (1990 SCC 103); and R. v. Côté (1996 SCC 170);

AND WHEREAS, on Dec. 13, 2024, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs recognized the AIN Treaty and the AIN Tribunal on a Nation-to-Nation basis; (See Appendix A)

AND WHEREAS Indigenous Common Law is presumed to continue for all the Unconquered Indigenous People of Turtle Island, pursuant to R. v. Desautel (2021 SCC 17) at [¶30], [¶68] and [¶86];

AND WHEREAS the QUEBEC Superior Court in R. v. White & Montour (2023 QCCS 4154) [¶1201f] entrenched the UNDRIP into s.35 of the CANADA Act of 1982 as a binding International instrument, via the consent of the Canadian government in 2016, per Montour [¶1185-87], which consent is a LIMIT on CANADA’s Sovereignty, per R. v. Hape (2007 SCC 26) at [¶43 & ¶40] recognized AIN’s Sovereign Equality;

AND WHEREAS §52 of the Constitution recognizes §35 as the Supreme Law of the Land;

AND WHEREAS the Crown is only the de facto controller of our Land and Resources, pursuant to the SCC in Haida Nation v. B.C. (2004 SCC 73) at [¶32];

AND WHEREAS the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) Articles §1 and §44, and the Organization of American States (OAS) ADRIP Article §1 guarantee the Indigenous People of the World their Rights as Individuals;

AND WHEREAS UNDRIP Article §3, and the OAS ADRIP Articles I and III guarantee the Individual Indigenous People of the World their Right to self-determine;

AND WHEREAS UNDRIP Articles §5, §18, §27, §34 & §40, and the OAS ADRIP Articles XXI and XXII guarantee the Individual Indigenous People of the World their Right to their own judicial and law systems, as protected by the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights at [Part II];

AND WHEREAS the SCC in Nova Scotia (AG) v. Canada (AG) (1950 SCC 26) clearly stated that: relating to sovereignty, governments do not possess […] the unlimited capacity of the Individual [p.33f];

AND WHEREAS the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights at Article 1 guarantees the Right of all People to self-determination including the Right to determine their political status, pursue their economic, social and cultural goals, and manage and dispose of their own Resources.

AIN Tribunal: Declaration & Order

This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ meet the criteria of Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction, according to the Biological Weapons Anti Terrorism Act (1989), 18 USC § 175; Weapons & Firearms § 790.166 (Fla. Stat. 2023), Canada‘s Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act (2004), and the International Biological Weapons Convention.

This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, are in fact Biological and Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

AIN Tribunal: Reasons

Upon review of expert evidence and published peer reviewed articles, it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, are in fact Biological and Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

PART 1: Expert Opinion of Dr. Francis Boyle

Dr. Francis Boyle provided his Expert Opinion that ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ met the criteria of Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction according to Biological Weapons (18 USC § 175); Weapons & Firearms: §790.166 (Fla. Stat. 2023).

Francis A. Boyle was a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who received an AB (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and PhD degrees in Political Science from Harvard.

In 1985, he drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was unanimously approved by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush with the approval of the United States Department of Justice. He additionally wrote the book Biowarfare and Terrorism (Clarity Press 2005).

Dr. Francis Boyle labels the ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injection’ – an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain-of-function properties to make it more lethal, more infectious, and it also has HIV, the precursor to AIDS DNA genetically engineered into that. He concludes, as we do, that they are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

PART 2: Expert Opinion of Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea (MD & PhD)

‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ contain heavy metal contaminants and Self-Assembly Nanotechnology Heavy Metals & Nanotechnology.

Self-Assembly Nanotechnology has been found in the injections and subsequently in human blood, initially in the vaccinated, and later from shedding on the unvaccinated as well. An international research group of over 60 doctors, pharmacists and other professionals examined COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections from six different manufacturers:

• AstraZeneca,

• BioNTech/Pfizer,

• Moderna,

• Johnson & Johnson,

• Lubecavax,

• Influspit Tera

This group, known as – ‘The Working Group for COVID Vaccine Analysis’ – used scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, mass spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma analysis, bright field microscopy, darkfield microscopy, and live blood image diagnostics.

More recently, another international research team examined hundreds of C19 Injection vials from Pfizer, Moderna & AstraZeneca. They found “countless tiny sharp metal objects” leading one of the researchers to consider that severe effects from these impurities are “probably misdiagnosed by many pathologists as myocardial infarction.” Similarly, stainless steel fragments were found in COVID Vaccine vials in Japan.

Self-Assembly Nanotechnology

Doctors from Italy published a study of darkfield live blood microscopy of 1006 patients who received the Pfizer and Moderna Covid 19 bioweapon. This showed that 94% of individuals had self-assembly nanotechnology structures in their blood.

Hydrogel Polymers

The most serious concern about the C19 Injections centers around the use of Hydrogel Polymers that self-assemble and self-spread. This is a substance created by nanotechnologies known to be in the C19 Injections. These nanotechnologies are what are called lipid nanoparticles, which include polyethylene glycol in the Pfizer vaccines and SM-102 in the Moderna vaccines.

“I (Dr. Mihalcea) believe Hydrogel is responsible for a silent surge of deaths.”

Bio-Sensors

Dr. Mihalcea indicated that she and her colleagues have chronicled the growth of nanotechnology hydrogel polymers in the C19 vaccines, vaccinated, and unvaccinated blood (exposed through shedding). The growth process often begins with activity from quantum dots, which blink and change color. Quantum dots, nano and micro-robots are nano-scale technology that can transmit information and act as biosensors.

Blood Clots of Polymer Plastic

This activity is often followed by the aggregation of quantum dots into spheres. Her testimony indicates the spheres then break open and create ribbon-like filaments. Using near infrared spectroscopy, she determined that these filaments are hydrogel polymers. She indicates that experiments show these filaments, invade the body by growing continuously – even after death.

Dr. Mihalcea further provides that later the hydrogel transforms the blood into sheets of polymer plastic. The hydrogel forms clots that can be seen with the naked eye, and they pose a much greater health risk than normal blood clots.

The blood clot of a C19 vaccinated person shows remnants of blood fused with yellow, rubbery, plastic-like hydrogel substances.

Clots Show Indestructability

“Polyethylene, part of the polyethylene glycol in the Pfizer C19 Vaccine, is a well-known choice for making bioplastics. Unlike normal blood clots, a polymer bioplastic blood clot is far hardier and much harder to dissolve.”

Dr. Mihalcea and Clifford Carnicom attempted to dissolve it with nine different reagents, including fuel injector cleaner, strong sulfuric acid, alcohol and lye. None of them made any difference, except for a minor reaction with lye.

Translates to Harm in Patients

Dr. Mihalcea witnessed heart problems in her new patients who come in with significant amounts of hydrogel in their blood. All symptoms that are called long-Covid, which include brain fog, fatigue, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and accelerated aging are correlated with these blood findings.

Transhumanism

Dr Mihalcea’s evidence is that humans are being transformed into trans-humans without their consent. Hydrogel is an extremely versatile substance that can mimic any cell in the body including the brain. But it doesn’t just mimic cells – it replaces them.

“I’ve (Dr. Mihalcea) witnessed the growth of hydrogel sheets in human blood, and how that growth results in a reduction of natural blood cells. This change in the body is nothing less than transhumanism, and affected people are unwittingly being transformed without their consent.”

Dr. Mihalcea quotes parallel research including an MIT study that actually lauds the many “hydrogel interfaces towards merging humans and machines.” Another study reports success in using hydrogel to achieve a “36.3% enhancement in neurite extension,” which means achieving a growth of synthetic cells in the brain. This is literally growing a parallel brain.

The Tribunal hereby concludes that these heavy metal, polyethylene, poisons, toxins, nanotechnology, biosensors, are deliberate experiments on mankind, and an attempt to fuse synthetic control mechanisms into humans that, in effect, are simultaneously done without our consent and which have killed countless and maimed others.

In its purest form, the mass application of ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ to attempt to fuse mankind with technology is an experiment of pure evil on mankind. At its logical end point it is the end of mankind and a genocide.

Dr. Mihalcea arrives at firm conclusions about the C19 Injections: she concludes that they are an aggregation of poisons and nanotechnologies that cause a broad range of diseases, DNA devastations and deaths. Dr. Mihalcea indicates that governments have deliberately foisted a bioweapon upon its own citizens.

This Tribunal finds for these additional reasons that the ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ are Biological and Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction. Mankind has yet to achieve Justice in the broad application of these technologies on the population. It is evident that those promulgating this experimentation on mankind are motivated by a view of man that does not involve man himself as author of his destiny, but a mere lab animal whose biological harm, destruction, or death is a waste product in a social demonic engineering of the highest order.

PART 3: Broad Systemic Diseases (Dr. Andrew Zywiec, MD & Tribal Practitioner)

Additional testimony and peer reviewed articles support the finding that Covid-19 Injections, and all mRNA injections, are Biological & Technological Weapons designed to harm, not to protect or to cure. They have been the cause of and/or a major contributing factor to, a wide range of diseases, including, but not limited to:

neurocognitive issues such as MECFS, dementia, psychosis, brain fog, cardiovascular concerns such as arrhythmia, stroke, myocardial infarction, obstetrical and gynecological concerns like uteroplacental insufficiency, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), irregular menses, heavy bleeding, systemic problems like multisystem inflammatory syndrome, chronic fatigue and pain, hematological and oncological concerns such as coagulopathy and increased/advanced cancer development; and much more…

PART 4: Risks to Human Genome & Shedding (Dr. Paul Alexander)

mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, pose no benefit, yet are harmful and cause a wide range of diseases, including death. The mRNA Nanoparticle Injections pose a risk to the human genome and thus to future generations. The bio-distribution of the lipid nanoparticles throughout the human body wreaks havoc on multiple organs and bodily systems. The shedding associated with these injections poses a significant health hazard, even to those that have not received the injection. This appears especially true regarding close or intimate contact.

At this point in time, based on the scientific data, the refusal to discontinue and to remove the mRNA Injections from the market, and the deceptive attempts to conceal the dangers, it is my professional opinion that COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, are in fact Biological & Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

PART 5: Gene Altering Agents are Bioweapons

The Tribunal accepts the evidence and concludes that ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ are gene-altering agents that fit the definition of a biological and technological weapon of mass destruction. The mass application and shedding is evidence of the methodology of mass destruction. The sheer number of destructive means is sinister and horrific on a plane and scale that mankind has yet to grapple with – for it implies an evil intent of disproportionate ability for this Tribunal to quantify in one declaration.

This Tribunal has difficulty fully articulating the level of evil that has taken place in the application of ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ as Biological & Technological Weapons onto humanity. The tragedy has historic proportions, due to the injection’s capacity for intergenerational harm.

Multiple studies have detected contamination of these shots with bacterial DNA (plasmids) which can integrate into the human genome and cause harm. In addition, studies have shown the presence of the SV-40 promoter-enhancer nuclear localization sequences that can alter the genome and cells to make cells cancerous. These shots have caused massive amounts of harm and deaths.

We accept that any ‘system’ reporting the number of deaths will not reflect the maiming and culling of mankind that is presently underway. One doctor showed an estimate by one global study to be some 17 million deaths. We do not need to decide how many have perished to declare that the[se] ‘COVID-19 Injections’ are Biological & Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We find and confirm that these are not only gene-altering agents, but also produce the harmful Spike Protein throughout the body, resulting in immune reactions against the recipients’ own cells resulting in cell-death, and accompanying diseases or conditions to include:

• autoimmune diseases,

• cardiovascular diseases such as myocarditis,

• heart attacks and strokes,

• cancers, particularly in younger populations,

• Infertility, and

• fetal loss

The publication of studies and the repeated cry for these injections to be discontinued and removed from the marketplace is noted.

PART 6: DNA Fragments, Dr. Speicher & Other Published Articles

Synthetic plasmid DNA fragments are in their shots. The makers of the vaccines must be presumed to control the ingredients and quality of the contents.

A peer-reviewed study published in Autoimmunity has confirmed that both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 Injections are contaminated with enormous quantities of DNA fragments – billions to hundreds of billions per dose – with Pfizer‘s product uniquely containing the SV40 promoter-enhancer, a viral genetic element long associated with changing the cells genomic DNA and cancer concerns.

Citation: https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916934.2025.2551517

Study authored by: Dr. David J. Speicher, Dr. Jessica Rose & Dr. Kevin McKernan.

The limit on DNA Contaminants is due to the fact that we are genetic beings. ‘Exceeding the levels’ means there are exceptionally serious concerns that these human DNA fragments are integrating into patients’ genomes and driving the injuries.

By definition, plasmids are integration-competent DNA molecules – they are the very tools used in gene engineering to insert sequences into genomes. They are tools to insert DNA into our human DNA. The presence of these three human genetic sequences is confirmed in an October 2023 Nature NPJ Vaccines publication.

Citation: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10567765

The Tribunal finds that the deliberate silence by regulatory agencies and governments in response to published articles showing the risk of genomic integration necessitates an implication of knowledge, collusion, and intent to continuing the mass application of biological & technological weapons of mass destruction on the world population.

The international governments’ wide disinterest is an appalling fact that we take note of.

The evidence of the post-marketing adverse events by various vaccine manufacturers (publicly published by Aaron Siri) establishes a devastating amount of knowledge of adverse events, including fetal harm.

PART 7: Fetal Harm & Purposeful Abortifacient

Studies we examined have shown severe harms from COVID-19 Injections during pregnancy. Thorp, et al found unacceptably high breaches in safety signals for 37 Adverse Events after COVID-19 Injection in pregnant women and called for an immediate global moratorium on COVID-19 Injections during pregnancy.

Some of the adverse events include:

• miscarriage,

• fetal chromosomal abnormality,

• fetal malformation,

• cervical insufficiency,

• premature rupture of membranes,

• premature labor, premature delivery,

• fetal cardiac arrest, and

• fetal death (stillbirth)

Citation: https://PublicHealthPolicyJournal.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy-as-safe-and-effective-as-the-medical-industrial-complex-claim-part-i

PART 8: Depopulation

Dr. Rima Laibow notes that the application of the ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ are consistent, in fact, with the official United States doctrine of depopulation, as articulated by Henry Kissinger in his December 10, 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 as adopted by the United States in collaboration with the United Nations.

Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

Full Report: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200.pdf

US:DOS Archive: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve14p1/ch3

PART 9: Censorship

We note that this state-sanctioned murder has been possible with the culling of speech, speakers, and whistleblowers who dare speak against the governing corporate oligarchy.

The sustained actions with the coordination and complicity of professional bodies that cut off at the knees many who speak against the biological and technological weapons and the routine de facto Judicial Notice by Courts of these structures that is imposed has created a structure to perform genocide under lawful pretense.

We take note of Lisa Miron’s extensive work on this topic in World on Mute to supplement the total system-wide mechanism of censorship and silence that enforces and coordinates speakers in professions, unions, school boards etc. Such system-wide censorship and transnational coordination to use professional corporate bodies as a mechanism of silence is a long and well-planned and non-accidental coordination that assisted the mass application of weapons of mass destruction upon humanity.

Lisa Miron – World on Mute (Amazon): https://amazon.ca/dp/B0F8RC4PTD

CONCLUSION

The AIN Tribunal finds that the Application of Biological & Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction with Gene-Editing and Nanotechnology and Transhumanist additions will result and has resulted in a genocide. (For clarity this panel does not minimize the Holocaust.)

Mankind has been living in the most powerful of delusions – that murder by government, or NGOs, or international corporate oligarchy could ever rest on any moral principle. The fundamental purpose of Law is to seek the Truth and provide for Justice.

The Tribunal finds that these Bioweapons: COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections were constructed by colonial powers to be deployed universally on mankind and on our original peoples as a priority group.

As such colonial systems have only served to perpetuate the injustice of what can only be seen as a planned and executed murder and depopulation of mankind around the world. The lack of Justice in colonial systems must be seen as by design and to further the application and deployment of bioweapons on the public.

We ask the original peoples and rest of mankind to stand together to give this Decision and declaration the force of Morality and Justice – which is the basis of any system of Law. There can be no architecture of Law that is a permissive grant to deploy bioweapons on mankind.

We find there is a consequential degeneracy in the intrinsic value of mankind by those who have and continue to promulgate the application of Weapons of Mass Destruction on Humanity. The COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, are weapons: Biological Weapons. Cellular Weapons. Poisonous Weapons. Genetic Weapons. Nanotechnology. Intergenerational Weapons. Technological Weapons.

This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the COVID-19 Injections, mRNA Injections, or mRNA Nanoparticle Injections, are in fact Biological and Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the ‘COVID-19 Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘mRNA Nanoparticle Injections’ or ‘COVID-19 Injections’ meet the criteria of Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction, according to the Biological Weapons Anti Terrorism Act (1989), 18 USC § 175; Weapons & Firearms § 790.166 (Fla. Stat. 2023), Canada‘s Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act (2004), and the International Biological Weapons Convention.

This Order and Declaration is intended to have immediate worldwide effect.

Issued on the 8 Day of October, 2025.

A Leaping Ram for the A.I.N. Tribunal.

APPENDIX ‘A’

Email: Canada: Hon. Gary Anandasangaree (MCIR) to AIN: Eagle Eyes aka Geoffrey

— Original Message —
From: minister@rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca
To: Info@AllianceOfIndigenousNations.org
Sent: Friday, December 13th 2024, @14:18
Subject: Correspondence from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

December 13, 2024

Eagle Eyes aka Geoffrey
Grand Council Representative
Alliance of Indigenous Nations

Dear Eagle Eyes aka Geoffrey:

Thank you for your letter of September 3, 2024, providing an update on the activities of the Alliance of Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island, including the establishment of the Alliance of Indigenous Nations International Peace Treaty, the International Indigenous Governing Body, and the Alliance of Indigenous Nations International Tribunal.

It is wonderful to hear of this expansion, and to hear that the Tribunal was further strengthened by its restructuring earlier this year. I trust that this expansion and restructuring will benefit Indigenous Peoples all around the world, including future generations. I also commend you for having a panel of judges from every continent to advance this important work and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples all over the world.

I look forward to continuing our nation-to-nation relationship and to learning more about your important work.

Sincerely,

Hon. Gary Anandasangaree, PC, MP

Canada

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Edutainment Purposes only.

Resources

S4T/J4EIM: Episode 1 (2025-07-18)

S4T/J4EIM: Episode 2 (2025-08-01)

S4T/J4EIM: Episode 3 (2025-08-29)

S4T/J4EIM: Episode 4 (2025-09-05)

All Chapters: https://blog.Justice4EIMisconduct.com/podcast

J4EIM: Home Page

Note: We know there are mistakes in the auto-generated Captions. We do plan to manually correct each episode to ensure the Transcripts match our Intentions.

Subscribe now

(#11) Many Cases: SST TMs ‘Reverse-Engineer’ Decisions (Justice 4 EI Misconduct)

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Legal Principles: Error #11 (EI Adjudicators ‘Selectively Apply’ Law)

Fundamental Questions (8): #3-#10

Grounds of Review (4): FCA §18.1(4)(a-c,f)

Vavilov Principles (5+): Decision & Outcome

Fairness Principle & Meaningful Reasons

• (b) Other Statutory or Common Law (¶111-14)

• (d) Evidence Before Decision Maker (¶125-26)

• (e) Submissions of the Parties (¶127-28)

• (f) Past Practices & Past Decisions (¶129-32)

• (g) Impact of Decision on Individual (¶133-35)

   

Questions & Issues

Jurisdiction: Are there Objective Standards for ‘vires’ (Jurisdiction & Admissibility)?

Fairness & Consistency: Are these standards Discretionary [and Public]? On what Grounds? What Reasons are Required? Is Consistency Required? Can EI ADMs Arbitrarily Include/Exclude Evidence between different-yet-similar Cases?

Private Law: Can ADMs Ignore Employment Contracts? On what Grounds? Are they Binding? Are Contracts Admissible by Both Parties or Just the Employer? Is there Equal Application (or Implication) Requirements? Must they be Stated in their Reasons?

Common Law: Are various legal ‘Tests’ Applicable to EI, specifically ‘KVP’? When? What are the Grounds for Using/Omitting such Tests? Can they be Argued by Claimants? Can they be unilaterally Introduced by Adjudicators while Refused to Claimants?

Jurisdiction: Conflicting Standards or Definitions re. Admissibility.

Fairness: SST TMs Arbitrarily Use (or Exclude) ‘Inconvenient’ Evidence & Legal Tests. This is facilitated by using pre-written ‘Atrium Decision Templates’.

Errors in Law: Employment Contracts & Common Law Tests (such as ‘KVP’) are often Misused or Selectively Applied to Reverse-Engineer Desired Outcomes.

Process Errors: The EI Home Statute is being Violated in Decision Making.

Law & Jurisprudence

Please consider my SST-AD Written Arguments (@[P16] ‘DA-694-Args’) incorporated (by reference) into this J.R. Factum (Memorandum of Fact & Law). To save space, I won’t reprint everything it contains, but large sections are critically relevant.

This specific section incorporates the ‘#1: Nullified Policy & Misused CBA’ & ‘#4: Management Inconsistency’ sections. 1

Procedural Fairness & Errors in Law: There are three specific legal principles that were often applied selectively, depending on the desired Outcome: ① ‘Just Cause’ Analysis, ② the Use & Analysis of Employment Contracts (CBAs), and ③ the Common Law ‘KVP Test’. EI ADMs consistently choose the application that led to Denial of EI Benefits, even when that meant contradicting prior findings or selection of these exact same entities in their own previous C19-MM Decisions.

1. Just Cause Analysis: Prior to the Pandemic, it was understood that conducting ‘Just Cause’ Analysis (per: EI Act §29[c]) was the primary basis for determining whether to Disentitle or Disqualify EI Claimants.

   This included: EIA §29(c)(xi): ‘Employer Practices Contrary to Law’ Analysis and EIA §29(c)(vii/ix): ‘Significant Changes’ to the Employment Contract.

   Mysteriously, the Home Statute’s primary test for determining Disentitlement was deemed ultra vires – precisely when thousands of Claimants applied for EI Benefits claiming these exact reasons…

    

2. Employment Contracts: ‘Selective Unfairness’ was applied to Employment Contracts (and Collective Agreements) too. When citing relevant contractual Terms ‘justified’ Dismissing Cases, most SST Members did. However, when applying relevant Terms would result in Allowing EI Benefits, it was suddenly ultra vires to do so. My Case received this unfair treatment – among hundreds of other Cases…

    

3. Common Law ‘KVP Test’: During the pandemic, I noted many SST Decisions (at both GD & AD levels) unilaterally cited the ‘KVP Test’ 2 to justify Denying EI Benefits Claims. But, whenever applying KVP would result in the Claim being Allowed, it was instead declared ultra vires using pre-written Decision Templates.

This [mis]use was consistent: whatever Jurisdiction was needed to Deny Benefits was ‘found’ by TMs – regardless of their own previous Cases. This is unfair and unreasonable. (per: Vavilov ¶121) ADMs cannot “Reverse-Engineer desired Outcomes” by using ‘selective application’ of the Law.

This miscarriage of Justice regularly occurred in ‘C19-MM’ (Pandemic-Mandate-Misconduct-related) Cases (post-2021). Querying & Analysing the SST Decisions Database for Cases prior to 2020, evidences the fact that this inconsistency was rare.

In most cases, SST Members did not ‘selectively’ refuse to apply relevant legal principles and statutory provisions on Jurisdictional grounds prior to 2020.

This section relies on – and incorporates by reference – Arguments from several other sections in this Factum. They are introduced & primarily contained there to facilitate logical flow, but Analysed ‘in practice’ to demonstrate their erroneous use here.

Error #1: ‘Rizzo Analysis’: ‘Employment Insurance Act’ (‘Just Cause’ Analysis)

Error #3: Rule of Law & Jurisdiction (Employer Practices ‘Contrary to Law’)

Error #4: Private Law (Employment Contracts) & Common Law (‘KVP Test’)

Errors #14-15: ‘Atrium Decision Templates’ ‘Reverse-Engineer’ Decisions

Cross-Case Statistical Analysis

Below are various Statistical Analyses of pandemic-era SST Decisions. 3

SST Cases: Statistical Analyses (Inconsistent Application of Law)

* Incomplete Listing: Only Includes Final-Disposition Decisions *

* Current to: 2024-11-30 * (All Stats Queried from SST Decisions Database)

C19 Mandate ‘Case Load’: Total Cases by Cause (SST)

This table analyses the ‘C19-MM’ Case Load by Cause: Cross-Comparison of [‘Vaccine Mandate’] ‘Misconduct’-related Cases at the Tribunal [SST-EI] from 2019–2024.

2019 is included to provide a pre-COVID benchmark for cross-comparison purposes.

** Source Data: https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/4-Selective-Law/SST-Stats.xlsx **

During the Pandemic (2020-2024), there were 4943 Total SST-EI Cases Adjudicated:

(2019) ‘Pre-Pandemic Baseline’: = 988 Cases | (2019: Total SST-EI Benefits Cases)

(2020-21) ‘Pre-Mandate Lull’: 653.5 Cases = (712 + 595) / 2 | (2020-21 Average)

(2022-23) ‘Mandate Peak’ Cases: 1400 Cases = (1304 + 1496) / 2 | (2022-23 Average)

(2020-2024) Total Cases: [‘C19-MM’] 1126 vs. 3817 [Non-Mandate] ([All] 4805 - 988 [2019])

Pre-Pandemic: 988 Cases | Pre-Mandate: 654 Cases | Mandate Peak: 1400 Cases

In late-2021, ‘Mandatory Vaccination Policies’ (‘MVPs’) began to be enforced across the country, which caused a significant spike in EI Claims, most of which hit the Tribunal between 2022-23. (i.e. During the ‘Peak Pandemic’ Period)

Contrary to popular belief, this was not a ‘fringe minority’ (“with unacceptable views”).

Throughout the entire Pandemic (2020-24), 22.3% of All SST-EI Appeals were caused by ‘non-compliance’ with MVPs. ([C19-MM] 1126 / 4943 [Total] 5931 - 988 [2019])

(2020-24) Pandemic Total: [‘C19-MM’] 1126 vs. 3817 [‘Normal’] = 22.28% of All SST Cases.

During the ‘Mandate-Peak’ (2022-23), 37.5% of All EI Appeals were caused by ‘non-compliance’ with MVPs. ([C19-MM = 430 + 621] 1051 / 2800 [1304 + 1496 = Total])

(2021-22) ‘Mandate-Peak’: [‘C19-MM’] 1051 vs. 1749 [‘Normal’] = 37.54% of All Cases.

Pre-Mandate Pandemic Decline: 653.5 / 988 = 66% | Pre-Mean: 653.5 = (712 + 595) / 2

During the first two years of the Pandemic (pre-Mandates), there was a 34% Decline in SST-EI Cases, partly due to the reduction in EI Claims covered by the CERB Program. ([2020-21: Average] 653.5 / 988 [2019: Baseline])

Later, C19 MVPs caused a 42% Increase in Case Load (vs. pre-Pandemic benchmark: 1400 / 988), and a 2.14x Increase over the ‘Pre-Mandate Lull’ (1400 / 653.5).

Mandate Case Load Increase: 1400 / 988 = 142% | Peak-Mean: 1400 = (1304 + 1496) / 2

Pandemic Case Load Increase: 1400 / 653.5 = 214% (Peak-Mean vs. Mandate Lull)

No matter how this is framed, this is a National Crisis. There has never been a singular cause underlying 22% of all SST-EI Appeals (C19-MM Cases / Pandemic Total) – much less a 42% Increase in Appeals provoked by one policy change. (C19-MM ‘Peak’ vs. Baseline)

Worse: MVPs caused a 214% Increase in SST-EI Appeals vs. the ‘Lull’ when we ‘Locked-Down’ most of the Western world. (2022-23 vs. 2020-21: Total SST Cases)

C19 Mandate ‘Decisions’: Final Disposition by Cause (SST)

This table analyses the C19-MM ‘Success Rate’ by Cause: Cross-Comparison of EI Benefits ‘Success’ (Appeals Granted) by Cause.

Benefits Granted Rate: C19-MM (‘Vaccine Mandates’) vs. Non-C19-MM Cases

All of the C19-MM Cases were Appealed through the SST-EI between Jan 2022 (01-04) 4 ,5 & Sept 2024 (09/05). 6 ,7 Analysing their Decisions – compared with non-mandate related EI Cases – exposes serious inconsistency in Reasoning. (Often from the exact same TMs.)

(There were other pandemic-prevention-mandate-related cases in 2021: Masking, etc.) 8

Between 2021-2024 there were 4231 SST Decisions rendered: 9 (GD: 2370 + AD: 1861)

Of these, 3105 were not Mandate related + 1123 were based on policy ‘compliance’. 10

C19-MM: GD: 4.86% (29 / 597) || AD: 7.22% (38 / 526) || Total: 5.97% (67 / 1123)

Non-MM: GD: 24% (424 / 1768) || AD: 26.9% (360 / 1337) || Total: 25.25% (784 / 3105)

This may not seem significant up-front, but a detailed Analysis of their Reasoning proves that there are serious problems with this major discrepancy in Dispositions:

‘Normal’ Cases: 25.25% of the non-Mandate EI Claims were ‘Allowed’ by the SST.

C19-MM Cases: 5.97% of the ‘Vaccine-Mandate’ EI Claims were ‘Allowed’ by the SST.

This means C19-MM Cases were Denied 4.23x more than ‘standard’ EI Claims.

Difference (SST Total): ( [784 / 3105] = 25.25% / 5.97% [67 / 1123] ) = 4.23x

Difference (by Level): GD: 4.93x (24% / 4.86%) || AD: 3.73x (26.9% / 7.22%)

During the ‘Pandemic Peak’ more than 1 in 3 EI Claims were based on C19 Mandates.

At the same time, these Cases were Denied 423% more often than ‘Normal’ EI Claims.

Next, we will analyse the Reasons given to see whether TMs were Fair & Reasonable.

Argumentation

The following Cross-Case Analyses cover just over the last decade (2014-2024). 11

(NB: Although not included in these Analyses – since it was published in 2013 – the first SST Decision is notable as the TM conducted a Rizzo Analysis of the EI Act & Regulations…) 12

1. ‘Just Cause’ Analysis (EI Act §29[c]): The Home Statute EI ADMs are Appointed to Interpret in their Decisions requires them to fact-find for 14 ‘Just Cause’ factors.

    

2. Contract Analysis (EIA §51 & DBEP §21): All three Authorities (Statute, Precedent & Policy) also require ADMs to consider Employment Contracts in their Decisions.

    

3. ‘KVP Test’ (re. LSWU #2537 v. KVP [p.85]): This 65+ year-old Legal Test (for determining the validity of unilaterally-imposed corporate Policies), was made precedent by the Supreme Court in 2013 (‘Irving’: 2013 SCC 34 [¶24-27]).

   In C19-MM Cases, KVP was ‘selectively cited’ (‘Reverse-Engineered’) to ensure that SST Decisions always Denied Claimants their EI Benefits – even when that required using legally-contradictory [diametrically-opposed] rationale in their Reasoning.

    

4. ‘Atrium’ Decision Templates (‘Reverse-Engineering): EI ADMs must address the specific Facts & Legal Pleadings of each Claimant on their own merits – and justify each Finding by their Reasons. They cannot ‘build’ their Decision by ‘choosing’ pre-written Templates from other Cases, to ‘justify’ Outcomes pre-set by the Templates…

    

5. Appointment Analysis (SST Members): During the ‘Peak Pandemic’ (2022-23), the SST lost 28% of their TMs, while the Case Load increased by 214% (vs. 2020-21). After this inexplicable loss, they quickly increased their TMs by 50%, while now Denying C19-MM Claimants 4.23x more often than ‘normal’ Pandemic-Claimants. Is there a reasonable answer for how & why this anomaly occurred?

    

6. Decision Impact Analysis (Vavilov: ¶133-35): EI ADMs are required to:

   ① “Explain why [their] Decision best reflects the Legislature’s intention.”

   ② “Ensure that their [Decisions] are justified in light of the Facts & Law.” [and]

   ③ “Ensure that their Reasons demonstrate that they considered the consequences of [their] Decision.”

   None of these requirements were reflected in their Reasons & Decisions. Instead, TMs inserted Templates from other Cases that ‘guided’ them to pre-set Outcomes.

EI ADMs are truly engaging in legal gymnastics in their attempt to avoid the obvious: the legally requisite process – along with decades of historical precedence – requires detailed Fact-Finding. And the Evidence provided by Claimants is not ultra vires.

Home Statute: ‘Just Cause’ Analysis (EIA §29[c])

For 35+ years, the SST examined both [Provincial] Labour Laws and [Provincial] Health & Safety Laws – despite EI being a federal program. Importantly, the Canada Labour Code (‘CLC’) – a federal statute – is both the governing Labour & H&S Legislation.

[AM: ¶98]: “…The term ‘illegal’ has a broader meaning than merely ‘contrary to the criminal law’ and can include contraventions of employment standards and legislation (CUB 16209), collective agreements (CUB 51219), and licensing board certifications.” (2023 SST 1886: AM v. CEIC)

Given this fact, it is historically & legally unreasonable to refuse to conduct §29(c)(xi) Analysis to fact-find for whether the “Employer acted Contrary to Law.”

Both binding [FC] precedent – and multiple SST TMs concede – that both CBAs and the CLC must be considered under ‘Contrary to Law’ Analysis. (What happened?)

Before the pandemic (2014-19), there were 539 Cases that Contain ‘29(c)’ Analysis: Apparently, it was understood that this statutory requirement mattered (until 2020)…

See: 13 Cases relying on ‘29(c)(xi)’ Analysis: ‘Employer Practices Contrary to Law’
See: 26 Cases relying on ‘29(c)(xi)’ Analysis during the Pandemic. (2020-2024)

How is it reasonable for SST TMs to ‘selectively’ conduct this required investigation?

Even during the pandemic, TMs did conduct this statutorily-mandated Fact-Finding – unless it was related to C19-MM (COVID Vaccination). Then it’s suddenly ultra vires‽

Legal Argumentation underlying these Errors:

Home Statute: Contract Analysis (EIA §51 & DBEP §21)

The same [aforementioned] binding federal precedent (continuously reaffirmed for 3+ decades) requires EI ADMs to examine Contracts as part of this Analysis – and this requirement is also reinforced in EI Statute & Policy:

DBEP §21.2.2: [‘Proving Facts: Gathering All Available Evidence’]: “Evidence is any Information that tends to prove or disprove a point; it can take many forms such as: any written instrument including documents & records such as […] Contracts & Collective Agreements.”

DBEP §21.2.3: [‘Proving Facts: Evaluating the Evidence’]: “In the case of Misconduct or Voluntary Leaving, a Decision cannot be based solely on the Claimant's statement…” The ADM is pointed to EIA §51(b): “If information is provided, take it into account in determining the Claim.” (re. ‘Documents relating to Misconduct Claim’ from the Claimant.)

DBEP §7.2.1.1: [‘Fact-Finding [Misconduct] with the Employer’]: “To determine whether or not a Claimant was Dismissed for reasons of Misconduct, the Employer is asked to provide […] whether such action or omission violated a provision of the Contract of Employment…” (Employers are required to cite Contract violations‽)

EIA §51: [‘Information’]: “If, in considering a Claim for Benefits, the Commission finds an indication from the documents relating to the Claim that the loss of Employment resulted from the Claimant’s Misconduct or that the Claimant Voluntarily Left Employment, the Commission shall:

(a) Give the Claimant and the Employer an opportunity to provide Information as to the Reasons for the loss of Employment; [and]

(b) If the Information is provided, take it into account in determining the Claim.

The EIA §51 provides specific instructions for when EI Adjudicators: “find indications from the documents [] that the loss of Employment resulted from the Claimant’s Misconduct.” They are required to “give the[m] [] an opportunity to provide Information & […] take it into account in determining the Claim.”

And the DBEP §21.2 explicitly states that ‘Fact-Finding’ for ‘Information’ always involves examining “Documents […] such as Contracts & Collective Agreements.”

Lastly, Vavilov’s requirement for ‘Reasonable Decisions’ re. ‘Common Law’ states:

[Vavilov ¶111]: “Where a relationship is governed by Private Law [(i.e. Employment Contracts)], it would be unreasonable for the ADM to ignore that Law in adjudicating the Parties’ Rights...”

In the six years before the pandemic (2014–2019), there were 365 Cases that seem to discuss contents of ‘Employment Contracts’ & ‘Collective Agreements’ – which is what you would expect to find, based on the EI Digest Principles §21.2.2 (‘Gathering All Available Evidence’) which also states that ‘Employment Contracts’ and ‘Collective Agreements’ are among the “evidence necessary to prove the facts of a particular Case.”

(Twice in five paragraphs EI ADMs are told to gather Contracts for evidentiary purposes.)

But now, in C19-MM Cases [only], examining the relevant Employment Contract sections is deemed ultra vires. How is this practice of ‘selective application’ reasonable?

In 15 Cases, SST TMs Dismissed EI Appeals because the Claimants “did not file [their] CBAs” which they “would have examined” for “Contractual violations.” But, somehow, in their absence, TMs were required to find MVPs ‘compliant’ with missing Contracts‽

In 58 Cases, TMs Dismissed EI Appeals on ‘Management Rights’ grounds – authority that directly derives from Employment Contracts. If CBAs are truly ultra vires, the Management Rights clause is not admissible. How is this reasonable?

And what happens in situations where the specific Management Rights clause in use deems the policy in question Nullified – as in my Case? Without that clause, they cannot enforce any policy – but when properly applied, it prevents the specific policy in question.

On what grounds are CBAs ‘necessary evidence’ to properly determine EI Benefits Eligibility – in hundreds of SST Cases – unless it involves unlawful pandemic mandates?

Legal Argumentation underlying these Errors:

Common Law: ‘KVP Test’ (Policy ‘Validity’ Test)

( The Validity & Applicability of the KVP Test is established by SCC Precedent. )

[2023 SST 99: KM v. CEIC [¶29]: “The SCC has endorsed the KVP Test which means it is good law that should be applied.” (Citing: ‘Irving’ [2013 SCC 34])

[Irving: ¶24]: “The scope of Management’s unilateral rule-making authority under a Collective Agreement is persuasively set out in KVP. […] Any Rule or Policy unilaterally imposed by an Employer and not subsequently agreed to by the Union, must be consistent with the Collective Agreement and be Reasonable.”

[¶25]: “The Employer cannot, by exercising its Management functions, issue unreasonable rules and then Discipline Employees for failure to follow them. Such Discipline would simply be without Reasonable cause. To permit such action would be to invite subversion of the reasonable cause clause.” (cit. 1990 ON-CA 6974)

[¶26]: “Subsequent Appellate Decisions have accepted that rules unilaterally made in the exercise of Management discretion under a Collective Agreement must not only be consistent with the Agreement, but must also be Reasonable.” (citing [3] PE, NF & MB Appellate Decisions) || (2013 SCC 34: CEPU #30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper [¶22-27])

(NB: Surely within this context, facially-unlawful Policies, are also deemed unreasonable…)

During the Pandemic, the [Common Law] ‘KVP Test’ was either applied or argued 24 times. In every situation, the ADM made the ‘findings’ necessary to Deny Benefits – either unilaterally citing KVP to ‘justify’ MVPs or deeming it ultra vires to avoid considering whether the specific MVPs in question were ‘Contrary to Law’.

TMs selectively applied the KVP Test in a way that ensured EI Benefits were Denied:

12x it was unilaterally cited by TMs to Justify using new, non-CBA-compliant corporate policies to Disqualify the EI Claimants. But 12x, when Argued by the Claimants (because the Policy in question Failed KVP Test #1: CBA-Compliance), their TMs ruled that KVP was ultra vires & not arguable (notwithstanding it would have Changed the Outcome). In some cases, it was the same TM applying KVP inversely, ensuring the result was still Disentitlement. Is this Justice‽

Using a Case-Management Tool (‘Atrium’) that selectively-inserts various pre-written findings “as a backbone” (with pre-existing footnotes + citations) – that already pre-determines the final Outcome – and merely ‘filling-in the blanks’ around them is obviously ‘reverse-engineering’. Especially when done to purposely avoid statutorily-mandated fact-finding into whether the “Employer Acted Contrary to Law.”

This violates both Vavilov and Procedural Fairness – and is clearly unreasonable…

Legal Argumentation underlying these Errors:

Atrium Decision Templates (‘Reverse-Engineering’)

This widespread procedural unfairness occurs through the use of Decision Templates – a collection of prewritten Reasons, Citations & Footnotes with contradictory Findings.

TMs can select the Template[s] that enable[s] them to automatically Deny Benefits using prewritten reasons – as these mini-templates control their final Decision.

[Vavilov ¶118]: “…Legislative Intent can be understood only by reading the language chosen by the Legislature in light of the Purpose of the provision and the entire relevant Context… [¶121]: The ADM’s Task is to Interpret the contested provision in a manner Consistent with the Text, Context & Purpose, applying its particular Insight into the Statutory Scheme at issue. It cannot […] ‘Reverse-Engineer’ a Desired Outcome.” (2019 SCC 65: Canada [MC&I] v. Vavilov [¶118-21])

If relying on CBA Terms or the KVP Test [et al] would Deny the Claimant’s Benefits, TMs choose Templates supporting that finding – that reference the appropriate Jurisprudence – with empty blanks to supply the relevant Case-specific details.

But, if CBA Terms or the KVP Test would Grant the Claimant’s Benefits, then they are suddenly ultra vires – again with corresponding, contradictory Reasons & Case Law.

Example: Four common templates re. KVP that are used by TMs: two unilaterally invoked by TMs to justify Employers’ Contract Breaches + two rebutting Claimants who argue that their Employer’s MVPs Breached their Contracts – all with corresponding Case Law & Footnotes.

This is “reverse-engineering desired outcomes” which Vavilov deems unreasonable. Some TMs changed a few words to customise the Template, but the interlinked combination of text, citations & footnotes ‘give it away’:

Examples: KVP Used v. KVP Denied, [via] Footnotes. ** (11 different Cases, All Denied…) **

(This is just one set of examples where conflicting Templates ‘reverse-engineered’ Decisions.)

This results in inconsistent reasoning that consistently favours the government. But, the Outcome is consistent – EI Benefits are always Denied – regardless of whether [or not] the Reasons & Citations given conflict with that same TM’s previous Decision[s]…

Legal Argumentation underlying these Errors:

Tribunal: SST Members (Appointment Analysis)

Coincidentally, there was a significant reduction in SST TMs (Governor-General-Appointed Tribunal Members) during the ‘Peak Pandemic’. 13 ,14

At the same time that the Case Load was increasing by 214%, the Tribunal lost 28% of its Members – some of whom still had substantial time left on their Appointments.

This was followed by a rapid 50% increase in Members, while the rate of EI Denials to C19-MM Claimants increased by 423%. (As compared to ‘standard’ EI Claims at that time)

SST TMs: 1909, 2006, 2010, 2102, 2109, 2207, 2303, 2308, 2310, 2312, 2404, 2407, 2412

Is there any correlation between Mandates and this statistically significant Anomaly?

These facts lead to some obvious conclusions that easily explain this progression…
(But these apparently self-evident conclusions violate Natural Justice…) Reasonable Ones?

Vavilov: Impact on Affected Individuals (¶133-35)

One key Vavilov factor underlying reasonable Decisions. It requires considering:

[Vavilov: ¶133]: “Where the impact of a Decision on an individual’s Rights & Interests is severe, the Reasons provided to th[em] must reflect the stakes. The principle of Responsive Justification means that If a Decision has harsh consequences […] the ADM must explain why [their] Decision best reflects the Legislature’s intention. This includes Decisions with consequences that threaten an individual’s Life, Liberty, Dignity, or Livelihood.

[¶135]: ADMs are entrusted with an extraordinary degree of power over the lives of ordinary people, which [calls for] heightened responsibility […] to ensure that their Reasons demonstrate that they have considered the consequences of [their] Decision and that th[ey] are justified in light of the Facts & Law.”

(2019 SCC 65: Canada [MC&I] v. Vavilov: [¶133-135])

How does this apply to these frequently reverse-engineered Decisions? Unlawful Mandates had life-altering impacts on many Claimants’ livelihoods – during a global crisis – yet none of our Decisions had Reasons that addressed or justified this situation.

And my EI ADMs gave no consideration to this crucial factor in any of my Decisions.

Per Vavilov – and the EI Act (§29[c]) – ADMs are required to do the following three tasks:

① “Explain why [their] Decision best reflects the Legislature’s intention.” (re. ‘Just Cause’)

② “Ensure that their Reasons demonstrate that they considered the consequences of [their] Decision.” (re. Employer Acting Contrary to Law & Significantly Changing the Contract, while unlawfully Locking-Out Workers to “compel compliance with new Terms [& Policies].”)

③ “Ensure that their [Decisions] are justified in light of the Facts & Law.” (Where was this‽)

Instead of wielding their “extraordinary degree of power over the lives of ordinary people” justly – by fulfilling these three requirements when writing their Reasons & Decisions – ADMs “Reverse-Engineered Desired Outcomes” by selecting & inserting pre-written findings from other Cases that consistently guaranteed EI Benefits would be Denied…

(Notwithstanding that these legally-conflicting Atrium Templates contained multiple Errors.)

Application

There are very unequal applications of the Law, depending on the circumstances. Prior to the Pandemic, most EI ADMs followed their Home Statute, conducting Just Cause Analysis (per EIA §29[c]). However, this statutory requirement is universally ignored in C19-MM Cases, with varying excuses offered [or not] in their Decisions. The same applies to their use of Employment Contracts & Common Law Principles.

Jurisdiction: There are no historical authorities listed, leaving each ADM ‘Discretion’ – which is widely abused in COVID-19 Mandate Cases. ‘Jurisdiction’ is whatever choice of template leads to Misconduct Findings, regardless of the consequences – both for the wrongly Denied Claimants – and the EI Program’s Reputation. This cannot stand. For the sake of Justice, Judicial Intervention is needed to permanently fix this unreasonable Decision-Engineering.

Fairness & Consistency: EI Adjudicators need to be reminded to Justify their Decisions – Vavilov requires this to Find their Decisions ‘Reasonable’. It is patently unreasonable for ADMs to selectively either include or exclude Facts, Evidence, Contracts, and Common Law Tests & Principles, without proper Justification. Merely repeating the words ‘Jurisdiction’ should be insufficient for this lack of Fairness to stand upon Review. Furthermore, their Jurisdictional choices & Reasons should be consistent – individual EI ADMs should not be permitted to change these choices (Templates) at-will to ‘justify’ specific Outcomes.

Specific Elements: Here are specific elements drawn from my Case:

(a) Individual Facts & Evidence: Emails, Letters, Policies, etc.

(b) Private Law: CBAs (generally) and specific Terms & Clauses.

(c) Common Law: Binding Precedents, Principles & Legal Tests

On what reasonable Grounds can ADMs selectively apply various legal fundamentals like Contracts, their Terms & Common Law Principles? On what Grounds can they choose differently in other Cases? (Fundamental Justice requires consistent Application of Law & Fact – not consistent Outcomes – regardless of the effects on the Individual. Or any [potential] impacts to the EI & Justice systems – and their Reputations…)

1. Arbitrary [mis]use of ‘vires’ to exclude key Facts & Evidence raises both Jurisdiction & Fairness considerations, under FCA §18.1(4)(a/b).

    

2. Unequal Application of the Law – and of various Legal Principles – is an Error in Law, since something cannot be both Applicable and Inapplicable simultaneously. This meets the Grounds found in FCA §18.1(4)(c).

    

3. This is also arguably ‘acting contrary to law’ per FCA §18.1(4)(f).

Decision

For all these Reasons, we respectfully ask this Court to Quash TM Lafontaine’s Decision on the Grounds that it is Unreasonable.

Sources:

Statutes

(‘EIA’) Employment Insurance Act (SC 1996, c.23)
https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.6
EIA §29(c): ‘Just Cause’ Analysis (CanLII)

Jurisprudence

2019 SCC 65: Canada (MC&I) v. Vavilov [¶111] || ( https://CanLII.ca/t/j46kb )

2013 SCC 34: CEPU Canada, Local #30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd. (¶22-27)

1965 (ON-LA) 1009: re. LSWU, Local #2537 v. KVP Co. Ltd. (p.85).

SST Decisions Database: https://decisions.sst-tss.gc.ca/sst-tss/en/d/s/index.do

2023 SST 99: KM v. CEIC (¶29)

2021 SST 377: JL v. CEIC (¶29-¶34, ¶41-¶42, FN: 5-13)

(GDEI) 2013 SST 1: JB v. CEIC (¶10-13 ¶27ff)

KVP Templates: KVP Used v. KVP Denied, [via] Footnotes

Evidence

(‘Affidavit’) Affidavit of EI Claimant
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/FCA-Affidavit.pdf

(‘SST-Stats’) SST Statistics: 2019-2024 (MS Excel)
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/4-Selective-Law/SST-Stats.xlsx

Subscribe now

(#6) Inapplicable Historical Jurisprudence & Abuse of Process (Justice 4 EI Misconduct)

Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.

Legal Principles: Error #6 (Inapplicable Citations & Abuse of Process)

Fundamental Questions (2): #8-#9

Grounds of Review (2): FCA §18.1(4)(b-c)

Vavilov Principles (4): Decision & Outcome

• (b) Other Statutory or Common Law (¶111-14)

• (d) Evidence Before Decision Maker (¶125-26)

• (e) Submissions of the Parties (¶127-28)

• (f) Past Practices & Past Decisions (¶129-32)

   

Facts & Issues

Jurisprudence: Can EI ADMs reasonably apply Case Law containing substantively different (i.e. clearly distinguished) underlying Fact Patterns & Pleadings? What happens when they are shown this error, and they persist in using it anyways?

Abuse of Process: Can EI ADMs ‘Proof-Text’ Case Law to fundamentally change the established Adjudication Process? Is Procedural Fairness optional – or changeable – merely because Employers allege ‘Misconduct’?

Errors in Law: SST TMs cited Inapplicable Case Law, despite being shown how it was fundamentally different from this present Case. These Cases were also being cited ‘out-of-context’ (‘proof-texting’), ignoring the primary Reasons for their Holdings (Precedent).

Furthermore, these same irrelevant Cases are being cited in thousands of other C19-MM Cases, often using the same fallacious Reasoning processes.

Procedural Fairness: ‘Proof-Texted’ Jurisprudence is being cited to change the Adjudication Process. The statutorily-mandated fact-finding process is wilfully being avoided because ‘precedent’ ‘requires it’. (i.e. ‘Case Law supersedes Parliament’.)

Authorities

Please consider my SST-AD Written Arguments (@[P16] ‘DA-694-Args’) incorporated (by reference) into this J.R. Factum (Memorandum of Fact & Law). To save space, I won’t reprint everything it contains, but large sections are critically relevant.

This specific section incorporates the ‘Problem #2: Inapplicable Case Law’ arguments. 1

Jurisprudence

As proven above (see: Error #5: Internal Logic & Consistency), there are five primary FC[A] Cases being [mis]used to Dismiss (C19-MM) EI Appeals en masse…

They are being combined with the [fallacious] ‘4-Part Misconduct Test’ to ‘defend’ the proposition that EI ADMs cannot “consider how the Employer behaved” or “focus on the Employer’s conduct” or investigate “whether the[y] breached a term in the Contract” as that is ‘ultra vires’ – since they alleged Misconduct – which these Cases supposedly justify… 2

Historical Case Law

Since we have conclusively proven that using this Misconduct Test is unreasonable from a Logical standpoint, it’s time to address the Abusive application of these five Cases:

2005 FCA 87: Canada (AG) v. Bellavance (331 Citations: 100 + 231) | (¶3 | ¶10-11)

2007 FCA 36: Mishibinijima v. Canada (AG) (849 Citations: 524 + 325) | (¶32 | ¶2, ¶19)

2007 FCA 107: Canada (AG) v. McNamara (593 Citations: 329 + 264) | (¶9 | ¶21-23)

2010 FCA 314: Canada (AG) v. Lemire (110 Citations: 63 + 47) | (¶21 | ¶5, ¶19)

2016 FC 1282: Paradis v. Canada (AG) (610 Citations: 367 + 243) | (¶15-16 | ¶1-2, ¶34)

As proven by this table, these five Cases were cited ~2500 times. (As of: 2024-12-13) (And that’s unique Case citations: factoring multiple quotes per Case approximates 50K refs.)

While this 4-Part Test contains an Unjustified Premise (an untested, unverified assumption) that the ‘policy-violating conduct’ is inherently ‘Misconduct’, these oft-cited Cases all contain situations wherein the EI Claimant was legitimately – self-admittedly – guilty of real, proven Misconduct because they Breached their Employment Contracts.

In Paradis & McNamara, the Claimants both Failed Drug Tests, which obviously violated their Contracts – and Provincial Health & Safety Legislation. 3

[593x] 2007 FCA 107: Canada (AG) v. McNamara (¶9) | Failed Drug Test (¶21-23)

[610x] 2016 FC 1282: Paradis v. Canada (AG) (¶15-16) | Failed Drug Test (¶1-2, ¶34)

Mishibinijima had ‘persistent absenteeism’ Attendance issues (due to his alcoholism), with ‘numerous warnings’ on record, which explicitly violated his Contract. (¶19, ¶32)

[849x] 2007 FCA 36: Mishibinijima v. Canada (AG) (¶32) | Alcohol/Absence (¶2,19)

And Bellavance & Lemire both Breached their Contracts by breaking government requirements. Lemire was selling contraband cigarettes at work (which is a Criminal Offence [§121.1]) [¶21], while Bellavance was a federal government employee who repeatedly broke the HRDC ‘Code of Conduct’ (¶3,11) by “intervening personally in the processing of EI Cases” and “giving preferential treatment to some of his former employees & certain family members” – which also arguably borderlines on Criminal conduct.

[331x] 2005 FCA 87: Canada (AG) v. Bellavance (¶3) | Code/Trust/Conflict (¶10-11)

[110x] 2010 FCA 314: Canada (AG) v. Lemire (¶21) | Criminal/Contraband (¶5,19)