Self-Representation 101: Fighting EI Denial for Bodily Autonomy and Informed Consent. Portal Updated. New Substack Launched.

A new Substack launched to spotlight the area where unions don't provide support and members must fight back alone. Page dedicated to Self-Representation 101 created on my on my portal.

New Resource & Invitation to all public servants: Share your story.

Before we begin, I'm pleased to share that I've launched a new dedicated resource on my Union portal: Self-Representation 101 (https://en.gorodnichy.ca/members/self-representation-101)

This growing series provides guidance for public servants navigating the grievance system without union support. It includes real use cases and tactical advice from members who’ve had to defend themselves alone.

If you have a story to share—especially if your grievance was ignored or denied by your union—I invite you to contact me. Your experience may become another valuable use case to help others.

Below is one of those stories.

But what makes it especially important is this: the member not only chose to fight back alone—she also launched a Substack to publicly document her experiences, and to help others.

Her platform, Justice4EIMisconduct.substack.com, is now dedicated to a very specific issue that has affected thousands across Canada: being denied Employment Insurance (EI) for declining to comply with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate—and being accused of “misconduct” as a result.

I invite everyone interested in the subject to subscribe to her Substack. Below follows a recap of her story and key findings so far—summarized using ChatGPT. My plan is to include her story and the insights gained from her fight into the new “Self-Representation 101” resource mentioned above, which I hope will eventually grow into a comprehensive e-book to support public servants and other Canadians across the country.

Home :: Justice 4 EI Misconduct

---

A Public Stand in a Silent Storm

Her Substack begins with a post titled “Brief History”, describing her legal journey that began at the height of the pandemic. In the absence of precedent, rushed and sometimes unlawful employer policies were implemented. And when workers objected—often based on medical autonomy, informed consent, or religious belief—they were labeled as non-compliant and terminated or placed on Leave Without Pay (LWOP).

She writes:

“Laws were ignored. Contracts were broken. Inapplicable Case Law—and a decades-old erroneous Court Decision—was cited to explain [away] (or justify) all of the above… This cumulative ‘black swan’ event has exposed the fact that there has been significant drift away from the Legislative Intent originally codified into the EI Act by Parliament…”

---

12 Fundamental Questions — Framing a National Crisis

In her follow-up article “Key Questions”, the member presents 12 questions that cut to the heart of what went wrong during pandemic-era employment and benefits adjudication. These are not rhetorical. They are sharp, well-argued, and grounded in constitutional, administrative, and labour law.

She divides them into four themes:

---

⚖️ Government Jurisdiction

1. Who had constitutional authority over health mandates—federal or provincial?

2. Can government outsource rights violations to corporations through proxy action?

---

🏢 Employer Misconduct

3. Can company policies override existing laws?

4. Can policies violate collective agreements or employment contracts?

5. If policies are illegal or contradict contracts, are they legally binding?

---

🧑‍⚖️ Adjudicator Failures

6. Why do EI adjudicators ignore contracts and common law when denying benefits?

7. What legal standards or tests should be used to evaluate employer policy legitimacy?

8. Can tribunals ignore their enabling statutes and rule based on flawed case law?

9. Why is the law applied inconsistently between claimants—often to deny help?

10. Can adjudicators use internal, undisclosed memos to decide cases?

---

Employment Insurance Justice

11. Who really pays for EI—and is denying benefits truly about protecting taxpayers?

12. What happens when denial of benefits is based on outdated or incorrect precedent?

---

Why This Matters

Her case—and the growing community around it—is not just about one person’s refusal to be silent. It is about the right to self-determination, the integrity of our social contract, and the power of individuals to push back when institutions fail.

She is now one of a growing number of Canadians building parallel systems of support—sharing knowledge, pooling legal insights, and building tools for independent representation.

Please read her work. Subscribe. Share it.

And if you’d like your own story documented as part of this series, email me directly or reply in the comments.

You are not alone.

---

Appendix: Additional Resource — Grassroots Action from Stand4THEE

Just as I finished writing this article, as always with assistance from ChatGPT for structure and validation, I came across another excellent resource focused on the same issue of grassroots support for Canadians unjustly denied Employment Insurance. It's called Stand4THEE (www.Stand4Thee.ca), and incidentally, just last Friday they held a public meeting entirely dedicated to this topic.

I have not yet watched the full session, but I plan to. The link for you to check out is here. The summary, copied from there is provided below.

S4T Friday Night Zoom – July 18: EI Case Shaking up the System

A critical Employment Insurance (EI) case is heading to the Federal Court of Appeal and this deserves national attention. This case directly challenges the legality of how EI benefits were assessed during the COVID-19 mandates, a process that impacted tens of thousands of Canadians and their families.

The appellant argues that systemic legal errors were made in denying benefits based on "misconduct" findings. These denials relied on a flawed four-part test that included two logical fallacies—petitio principii and special pleading—which the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed unreasonable (Vavilov, para 104). Many denials were also based on falsified Records of Employment, potentially violating section 398 of the Criminal Code.

Legislative intent analysis using Hansard transcripts revealed that adjudicators ignored statutory obligations under EI Act §29(c) and Department of Employment and Social Development Act §64, wrongly claiming such reviews were outside their jurisdiction.

The case also uncovered the use of pre-written decision templates and internal policy memos—never publicly disclosed—to justify denying benefits. One such memo allegedly instructed adjudicators to override procedure specifically for Canadians who refused COVID-19 vaccines.

This case identifies 15 legal errors, 14 of which are said to affect thousands of similar denials. If successful, it could redefine how EI law is applied nationwide.