Resources :: Justice 4 EI Misconduct
About the J4EIM Project: Various Resources (Court Documents, Presentations, etc.)
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)
Rumble (Clips)
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)
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
The contrast between template-driven adjudication and actual statutory analysis is pretty damning. If decision-makers were genuinely following the law's requirement for "just cause" analysis, thered be way more variance in outcomes instead of the systematic denials. The fact that Atrium templates enabled reverse-engineering outcomes basically means the system was designed for predetermined results rather tahn individualized assessment, which seems fundamentally incompatible with fairness. Wild how much automated workflows can undermine legal accountability.