Help Support Half a Million Canadians Seeking Justice and Accountability
Nearly half a million Canadians were allegedly denied EI benefits during COVID-era mandates. Now, Justice 4 EI Misconduct is preparing legal action
Introduction
Massive numbers of Canadians are reported to have been unlawfully denied employment insurance benefits during the COVID operation for declining experimental injections, among other reasons. This amounts to profound coercion, pressuring innocent people into dangerous and misrepresented genetic experiments and related measures. In practice, many Canadians were placed in a position where refusing these injections meant losing basic financial support they had already paid into and were legally entitled to receive, affecting both them and their families. Nearly half a million Canadians were reportedly denied benefits in this way and Justice 4 EI Misconduct (J4EIM) is now working to address this issue. Help support their pursuit of justice by getting involved!
About Justice 4 EI Misconduct and the Mission
Were you denied EI because you refused to comply with COVID-era mandates tied to experimental injections? Justice 4 EI Misconduct is working to support Canadians who lost access to benefits under these policies and is helping pursue accountability and justice. Follow Matthew Arnold’s work, subscribe for updates, and get in touch if your job loss or denied claim was connected to these mandates. Learn more at Justice 4 EI Misconduct or contact the group directly at J4EIM@outlook.com.
Context (from Matthew Arnold)
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 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.
Policies Allegedly Used to Override the Law
Employers were accused of treating internal workplace policies as superior to contracts, collective agreements, labour protections, and existing law. Workers placed on unpaid leave or removed from employment for refusing workplace “vaccine” mandates were frequently coded as guilty of misconduct.
Canadian labour law has long recognized that employers cannot simply impose unlawful workplace rules through policy declarations alone. The KVP test, later affirmed by the Supreme Court in Irving, states that unilaterally imposed workplace policies must remain consistent with collective agreements and must also be reasonable and lawful.
Despite this, EI adjudicators were repeatedly accused of refusing to examine whether workplace “vaccine” mandates violated contracts, collective agreements, lockout provisions, or labour protections. Claimants were often told that determining whether an employer acted contrary to law fell outside the jurisdiction of EI decision-makers.
Contrary-to-Law Analysis Required
Section 29 of the Employment Insurance Act explicitly lists practices of an employer that are contrary to law as grounds for just cause when leaving or taking leave from employment. The legislation also recognizes modified work duties and undue employer pressure as legitimate grounds for EI qualification.
Prior to the COVID “pandemic,” adjudicators routinely examined whether employers breached contracts, violated labour legislation, or acted unlawfully when determining EI entitlement. Numerous tribunal decisions cited collective agreements, employment contracts, and statutory protections directly.
The refusal to conduct those analyses during mandate-related cases marked a substantial departure from both precedent and statutory requirements.
Secret BE Memo Said to Have Changed EI Rules
An internal Service Canada directive referred to as the BE Memo is said to have introduced a separate adjudication framework specifically for claimants accused of misconduct related to workplace “vaccine” mandates.
The memo reportedly stated that its guidance was not connected to any legislative or regulatory amendments. Nevertheless, it appears to have altered legal definitions, changed investigative procedures, modified how evidence could be considered, and instructed staff to avoid examining employer legality in mandate-related cases.
According to the allegations, the memo also introduced entirely new concepts that did not exist within statute law, including “exceptional circumstances” that supposedly justified bypassing ordinary legal protections during the “pandemic.”
Staff were reportedly informed that cases could be escalated to management if they failed to follow the memo’s directives. This arguably created institutional pressure for adjudicators to deny claims regardless of statutory protections embedded in the EI Act.
Record of Employment Codes Led to EI Denial
Official government guidance allegedly instructed employers to use Code N, indicating a leave of absence, when employees were removed from work for refusing workplace “vaccine” mandates. Instead, many workers received Code M for misconduct. That distinction carried enormous consequences because misconduct classifications triggered specialized adjudication pathways that overwhelmingly resulted in EI denial.
Under Canadian law, Records of Employment are sworn documents. The Criminal Code prohibits knowingly falsifying them. The allegations maintain that assigning misconduct codes to workers who were merely placed on leave may have carried significant legal implications.
The misconduct coding may also have protected employers financially. Workers placed on leave rather than separated for misconduct could later receive backpay through arbitration or settlements, potentially requiring employers to retroactively pay EI premiums for the leave period. Misconduct classifications would avoid those obligations.
Tribunal Templates and Standardized Denial
The tribunal case-management system known as Atrium reportedly relied heavily on pre-written decision templates containing embedded legal reasoning, statutory wording, and case law citations.
These templates were intended to improve consistency and efficiency, but they also appear to have allowed decisions to be effectively reverse-engineered. Identical paragraphs, legal conclusions, and citations repeatedly appeared across unrelated cases.
In some instances, contradictory templates existed simultaneously. One template reportedly stated that employers could unilaterally impose workplace policies even if unions disagreed, while another stated that the KVP labour law framework was irrelevant to EI adjudication entirely.
Reshaped EI Misconduct Analysis
Five Federal Court cases were reportedly extracted and cited thousands of times throughout mandate-related tribunal decisions. In each of those original cases, the workers had openly admitted to breaching contracts or violating workplace rules.
Sentences from those rulings stating that employer conduct was not relevant were, according to the allegations, removed from their original context and inserted into tribunal templates. This allowed adjudicators to bypass examination of whether employers themselves had acted unlawfully.
A new misconduct framework allegedly emerged:
Employers alleged misconduct
Employer conduct was excluded from review
Workplace legality was ignored
Claimants were denied EI for misconduct
It is argued that this created a circular process where the accusation itself effectively became evidence of misconduct.
Mandate-Related Cases and Worse Outcomes
Between October 2020 and May 2023, approximately 10.4 million EI applications were filed across Canada, with roughly 2.6 million denials. Denial rates reportedly rose from approximately 15 percent before the “pandemic” to roughly 25 percent during the mandate period.
Mandate-related appeals were described as performing dramatically worse than standard EI cases. Ordinary appeals reportedly succeeded roughly 25 percent of the time, while workplace “vaccine” mandate misconduct appeals succeeded less than 6 percent of the time.
By 2023, more than 41 percent of all EI tribunal appeals reportedly involved workplace “vaccine” mandate cases.
The denied benefits were estimated at between $11 billion and $13 billion, a figure large enough to place enormous pressure on the EI operating account itself.
Take Action (Simplified Overview)
A detailed guide and more information can be accessed in this J4EIM article Link↗
The steps to take action are as follows:
Download the Letter Templates
Access the prepared Public Interest Letter templates and choose the versions relevant to the courts, government departments, MPs, and J4EIM. Link↗Customize the Letters (Optional)
Add your own details, experiences, and concerns using respectful, clear language. You can also fill in contact information before printing. J4EIM note: “Please Be Respectful. None of these Recipients were responsible for this Scandal.”Print, Sign, and Complete the Forms
Print the required copies, fill in dates and contact details, sign each letter with a coloured pen, and mark whether:- your own EI case was affected, and/or
- you are attaching a Personal Impact Statement.
Write a Personal Impact Statement (Optional but Encouraged)
Describe how EI denial or related mandates affected you or your family. You can also identify which common procedural errors applied in your case.Mail the Letters Through Canada Post
Send the completed letters to:- Federal Courts
- Justice Canada
- Employment Canada / ESDC
- Your MP
- Justice 4 EI Misconduct
Physical mail is especially effective because government agencies are required to formally document mailed submissions.
Email Copies (Optional)
You may also send digital copies to the listed email addresses, but this should not replace mailing physical letters.Notify J4EIM That You Participated
Send a copy to J4EIM so participation numbers can be tracked and presented as evidence of public concern.Contact or Visit Your MP (Optional)
Speak with or deliver letters to your MP, especially if they are part of opposition oversight roles related to employment or justice.Share the Campaign With Others
Encourage others affected by EI denials or mandates to participate by mailing their own letters and sharing their experiences.
Additional Resources
Lex Acker also wrote valuable articles on this subject:
So happy to see this finally happening.