| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
It is clear from case law that the CEIC is in no way bound by agreements made between an employee and employer. It is entitled to look at the circumstances surrounding the payment on separation and determine whether it was in fact earnings regardless of what the parties claim the payment was for.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
The object of the inclusiveness of the definition of "earnings" is to prevent employers and employees from supplementing separation payments with UI benefits, and to prevent former employees from receiving income from two sources.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
future earnings |
|
Summary:
The Board, having determined the true nature of the monies received, failed to consider whether this was an advantage arising from employment. The contract was terminated. An agreement was reached to pay money for "future earnings". The amount is nevertheless an advantage arising from employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
time for payment |
|
Summary:
Oral agreement reached to pay $15,000 in 3 monthly cheques of $5,000. Regardless of the time frame notionally attached to the payment, claimant received the money upon reaching an agreement with his employer concerning the termination of his employment.
