| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Umpire decided that the claimant had met the burden of proof stated in the Walford decision to the effect that the damages paid by the employer did not constitute income as defined in the Act. In the case at hand, the claimant showed that the damages paid by his employer were not income since the amount received was broken down as damages for anxiety, moral suffering, loss of reputation, legal costs, job searches, travel costs and moving costs. The Commission did not provide anything to counter the established evidence.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Umpire decided that the claimant had met the burden of proof stated in the Walford decision to the effect that the damages paid by the employer did not constitute income as defined in the Act. In the case at hand, the claimant showed that the damages paid by his employer were not income since the amount received was broken down as damages for anxiety, moral suffering, loss of reputation, legal costs, job searches, travel costs and moving costs. The Commission did not provide anything to counter the established evidence.
