Summary of Issue: Definition

Decision A0392.07 Full Text of Decision A0392.07

The claimant was discharged on August 9, 2005 following a mass layoff that took place at one of the Tembec plants. On September 24, 2005 the claimant signed a document entitled "Receipt, Release and Settlement", which indicated specifically that in exchange for severance pay, the latter would agree to waive his layoff rights and terminate his employment with Tembec. The Commission allocated the severance pay in accordance with Regulation 36(9) and (10) effective from the end of employment: August 7, 2005. The Umpire, in supporting the decision of the BOR, concluded that the severance pay made out to the claimant had been paid in exchange for forfeiting layoff and reinstatement rights and that it had to be apportioned allocated as provided by Regulation 36(19)(b). The Court, unlike the BOR and the Umpires, found that the severance pay could not be merged with a payment carried out to waive a layoff right or reinstatement right while it was, in the case at hand, solely a layoff right. In federal law, reinstatement right is the right of an employee to resume work following an unjustified discharge, if the reinstatement is granted to that employee. The Umpire and the BOR incorrectly enforced the applicable legislation, namely paragraph 36(19)(b) instead of subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.

Decision 53706 Full Text of Decision 53706

Claimant recieved $1,500 upon termination of his employment as he was leaving the parish. Claimant argued that the payment was in the form of a gift and that it should not be considered as earnings from his employment. Argument dismissed by Umpire. The payment of the gift was related to the employment, it required approval from the congregation, it was paid in the form of a bonus or severance pay and considered as income for purpose of income tax.

Decision A-0599.92 Full Text of Decision A-0599.92

Termination Agreement provides for bi-weekly payments over a 7-year period prohibiting obtaining work in any competitive area. Words used by parties not conclusive. Periodic payments classified as pension income. Also, 50% remains payable to beneficiary upon claimant's death. Upheld by the FC.

Decision 20965 Full Text of Decision 20965

Refer to: A-0599.92

Decision 22110 Full Text of Decision 22110

Severance pay equal to 2 weeks' pay for each year of service paid to claimant. While this amount may well have exceeded the amount of severance pay the employer was required to pay under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, it does not change the nature of the payment for the purpose of the UI Act.

Decision 14233 Full Text of Decision 14233

Discussion of distinction made in the Ontario Employment Standards Act between termination pay (actually wages in lieu of notice) and severance pay.

Decision 13810 Full Text of Decision 13810

Generally paid in recognition of years of service, on the termination of the employer-employee relationship. In many cases, it is governed by collective agreement. Factors considered for calculation: length of service, employee's contribution to orgization and his position.

Decision A-1203.84 Full Text of Decision A-1203.84

Severence pay ['indemnité de départ] is payable to an employee who leaves employment without regard to notice of termination of employment he may have received. [Pratte J.A.] This expression refers to moneys that employer is legally required to pay; English equivalent refers to moneys owing on same basis as salary. [Pratte J.A.]

Decision A-1195.84 Full Text of Decision A-1195.84

Claimant, an employee of Labatt's, rather than termination chose to receive one year's salary over 24 months with full benefits. Contract held to be continuing. The money paid is clearly income and earnings. It cannot be severance pay under 57(3)(f). [p.8] Quotes CUB 5466 with approval: "I know of no rule of law to the effect that an employee who is dismissed without notice is entitled to something called severance pay." [p. 7]