| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a teacher. In June 2009, the claimant filed an application for EI maternity benefits. In addition to EI benefits, the claimant, while on maternity leave, was paid supplemental benefits (top up) from her employer. Following the 2 week waiting period, the claimant received a 100% top up for 6 weeks. The Commission determined that the claimant’s normal weekly earnings should be calculated based on the claimant’s annual salary divided by 52 weeks and that for the 6 weeks following the waiting period, she received more than the normal weekly earnings allowable under the EIR. Therefore, the issue was the proper calculation of normal weekly earnings under s. 38 of the EIR. The opinion of the FCA is that the anomaly on which the Commission relies in this complex statutory scheme is neither unique nor so glaring as to warrant rejecting the claimant's approach to the calculation of her normal weekly earnings in the context of this collective agreement between her union and her employer. The application for judicial review was allowed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
supplementary unemployment benefits |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a teacher. In June 2009, the claimant filed an application for EI maternity benefits. In addition to EI benefits, the claimant, while on maternity leave, was paid supplemental benefits (top up) from her employer. Following the 2 week waiting period, the claimant received a 100% top up for 6 weeks. The Commission determined that the claimant’s normal weekly earnings should be calculated based on the claimant’s annual salary divided by 52 weeks and that for the 6 weeks following the waiting period, she received more than the normal weekly earnings allowable under the EIR. Therefore, the issue was the proper calculation of normal weekly earnings under s. 38 of the EIR. The opinion of the FCA is that the anomaly on which the Commission relies in this complex statutory scheme is neither unique nor so glaring as to warrant rejecting the claimant's approach to the calculation of her normal weekly earnings in the context of this collective agreement between her union and her employer. The application for judicial review was allowed.
