The employee kept HR informed, but that wasn't what the policy required
A forklift driver who missed three consecutive night shifts because his car broke down was dismissed for job abandonment and denied Employment Insurance benefits, the Federal Court ruled on February 23, 2026. Justice Mandy Aylen dismissed the worker's challenge, finding the employer's attendance policy was properly communicated and correctly enforced.
Rodney Sekitoreko began working for CWT Staffing Inc. as a night-shift forklift driver in June 2024. On June 18, he signed an acknowledgment confirming he had read and been trained on the company's Attendance and Punctuality policy.
That policy required employees to give one hour's notice to their direct supervisor/manager before each missed shift, along with the reason for the absence and a proposed return date. It stated explicitly that "if an employee fails to report to work and fails to notify their supervisor of the reason(s) for their absence from work for three consecutive shifts, or more, they will be considered to have abandoned their job and employment will be terminated."
Under the company's Employee Discipline policy, job abandonment was classified as a Level 3 infraction, the most serious category, and would result in either suspension or dismissal.
Written warning ignored
On November 5, 2024, Sekitoreko emailed the HR Manager to advise that his car had broken down and that he could not pay for the required repairs, leaving him unable to regularly report to work. The HR Manager gave him until November 12 to get his car repaired, after which he was expected to attend his regular shifts.
He missed his shifts on November 12 and 13 without notifying his supervisor on either day, as the policy required. On November 12, he also asked whether the employer could provide financial assistance for repairs. On November 14, the HR Manager warned him in writing: attend your shift that evening "otherwise I will treat this as job abandonment and you will be terminated."
Sekitoreko did not attend his November 14 shift and again did not notify his supervisor. The following day, he received a termination letter and record of employment citing job abandonment for three consecutive shifts without proper notice.
What the court says "misconduct" actually means
The court confirmed that under the Employment Insurance Act, "misconduct arises when the claimant's conduct is wilful — that is, where the acts leading to the dismissal were conscious, deliberate or intentional and bore a causal link to their employment." Financial hardship did not alter that conclusion.
The court also found that Sekitoreko's communications with the HR Manager did not constitute compliance with the policy, which specifically required notification to his direct supervisor, a distinction the court treated as decisive.
The applicable threshold, the court noted, sets a low bar: "it is enough for a claimant to understand or to be aware that dismissal was a real possibility." A written warning delivered the same day as his final absence ensured that standard was met.
See Sekitoreko v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 249
