| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
commissions |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant contended that the commissions he was paid after retiring from a transportation company did not constitute earnings within the meaning of sections 35 and 36 of the Regulations. These amounts were paid to him by a company that provides third-party insurance and each time a third party renewed, the claimant was entitled to a commission. It is clear that the commissions received as a result of the renewal of insurance policies must be allocated under subection 36(6) of the Regulations.
[5] The claimant himself admitted a number of times that the amounts he received were commissions from the renewal of policies (Exhibits 6.3, 6.4 and appendixes). In Exhibit 4, the claimant stated that the amounts constituted royalties from the renewal of insurance policies. He even added that such royalties would not be received if clients did not renew their policies.
[6] Clearly, the Board erred. I must rescind its decision, which is erroneous in fact and in law. The Commission's appeal is allowed. I rescind the Board's decision and confirm the Commission's initial decision.
