Summary of Issue: Rationale

Decision 38944 Full Text of Decision 38944

The legislators reasoned that if an individual received, on termination, a significant amount in the way of severance pay or vacation pay, that individual did not need the same amount of tiding-over as those who were not in receipt of such amounts.

Decision 37417 Full Text of Decision 37417

Section 37 calculation can be made at any time, and for good reason. Arbitration and court settlements and the like can come many years down the road. They do not respect limitation periods imposed by the Act. Section 37 ensures that the claimant is not to be paid twice for the same thing. UI system was never meant to provide a double indemnity.

Decision 25263 Full Text of Decision 25263

Surely the rationale for allocation is based on the proposition that one should not be regarded as having an interruption of earnings for severance during the period of time over which the amount paid at severance would normally have been paid to the claimant if his employment actually continued.

Decision 16144 Full Text of Decision 16144

The purpose is to ensure the earnings of those out of work and without earnings. One of the secondary purposes is to prevent "double dipping", i.e. receiving UI while receiving earnings.

Decision 14755 Full Text of Decision 14755

There are sound underlying policy considerations behind the fact that monies for wrongful dismissal are not insurable while they are earnings. UI scheme designed to provide temporary relief from economic hardship. Not a long-term income support plan.

Decision 14699 Full Text of Decision 14699

The general principle underlying the UI scheme is to provide assistance to those who, due to circumstances beyond control, have been cut off from their source of income. If the income continues, regs. 57 and 58 are to ensure no benefits will be paid until it runs out. [p. 5]

Decision 13943 Full Text of Decision 13943

Regs. 57 and 58 express the principle that those who receive money from employment, even though severed from it, do not collect UI benefits until exhausted. For a genuinely unemployed claimant, benefits not to exceed 60% of salary. Not payable if one receives 75%.

Decision 12925 Full Text of Decision 12925

The principle expressed in regs. 57 and 58 is that UI benefits ought not to be extended to those who are still receiving this kind of income from their work and will not be paid to them until they have exhausted it as allocated. The critical point is the time of payment. [p. 8-9]

Decision 12561 Full Text of Decision 12561

Generally speaking, UI is designed to replace income from employment, and not to supplement it. The fact is that claimant was in receipt of income, namely vacation pay, equivalent to 3 weeks. By denying benefits, the law is simply carrying out this basic purpose.

Decision 11614 Full Text of Decision 11614

To alleviate harship by providing monetary benefits for those whose earnings cease because of involuntary, blameless unemployment, but not to those who have not suffered a loss of earnings for days for which benefits otherwise payable.

Decision A-0263.78 Full Text of Decision A-0263.78

The Act sets up a scheme for protection against loss of income. It is not to pay benefits to persons who have not suffered any loss. One who has been compensated does not suffer any loss; the loss no longer exists. To be interpreted so as to prevent from paying UI if no loss.