Decision A130.16
Full Text of Decision A130.16
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
|
|
Summary:
This application for judicial review by Linda Mosley (the applicant) of a decision of the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division – upholding an earlier decision issued by the General Division to the effect that a one sum payment of pension benefits received by the applicant is to be allocated over the 11 month period prior to its receipt thereby giving rise to an overpayment of employment insurance benefits paid to her pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 was dismissed.
Decision 54934
Full Text of Decision 54934
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant was on a fishing trip beginning on March 17 and ended on March 20, 2000 when the catch was unloaded. BOR found that the earnings from the catch should be allocated to March 17 and 18 only, the 2 days on which the fish were caught. Held that although the expression "fishing trip" is not defined in the Regulations, its natural meaning must relate to the duration of the voyage rather than to the days in which the crew are actually engaged in recovering fish from the sea.
Decision 42726
Full Text of Decision 42726
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Once monies are determined to be earnings for benefit purposes and are found to be paid or payable, payment and receipt having been acknowledged by both parties, the issue of allocation arises. Clmt is not relieved from the operation of the allocation provisions even if the Commission or the employer provides erroneous information or commits an error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
material fact |
mistake as to a |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 40577
Full Text of Decision 40577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant was laid-off and was paid an amount of $ 1363. as vac. pay. He points out that the amount paid to him was not $ 1363. but $ 986. after deducting taxes. Umpire ruled that in terms of the amount per se, it is clear that the earnings for purposes of the Regulations are made up of the gross amount without regard to the appropriate deduction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
gross amount |
|
Decision 25305
Full Text of Decision 25305
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0560.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
Decision A-0560.94
Full Text of Decision A-0560.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The FCA found that the Umpire had erred when he viewed the $4,000.00 payment received by the respondent as being only $3,600.00, net of income tax deducted at source in the amount of $400.00. It is the gross amount that must be taken into consideration for allocation purposes.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
Decision 20749
Full Text of Decision 20749
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant appealed on the grounds that the monies (severance pay) received by her in the 1989 calendar year should not have been allocated into 1990. Claimant's assertion has no basis in law. The law must be applied as it is written.
Decision 19988
Full Text of Decision 19988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
A determination must first be made under reg.57; it is not necessary to consider the application of reg. 58 until it is first ascertained whether or not the payment in question falls within the description of earnings set out in reg. 57.
Decision 19876
Full Text of Decision 19876
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Retirement allowance taxed as 1989 income and allocated by the CEIC over a period in 1990. It is well established in the jurisprudence that the income may be treated differently under the Income Tax Act and under the UI Act. Each has its own purposes and systems.
Decision 17987
Full Text of Decision 17987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
A determination must first be made under reg. 57; it is not necessary to consider the application of reg. 58 until it is first ascertained whether or not the payment falls within the description of earnings set out in reg. 57.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
paid to third party |
|
Decision A-0249.87
Full Text of Decision A-0249.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
We are in full agreement with Umpire. S. 57 describes what comprises earnings in the hands of claimant. S. 58 describes how those earnings are to be allocated. One need not consider s. 58 until determination made under s. 57.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 12002
Full Text of Decision 12002
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0261.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0261.86
Full Text of Decision A-0261.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
That allocation of vacation pay under ss. 58(14) could only be done if the payment had been determined to be "earnings" under s. 57 and that did not occur.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Decision 12948
Full Text of Decision 12948
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The Commission argues that reg. 58(18) only applies when monies do not fall within any of the earlier subsections. Reg. 58(8) contains express provisions for vacation pay. I find myself in agreement with this position.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Decision 12899
Full Text of Decision 12899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues, and rightly so, that reg. 58 is an allocation section. If the payments are not earnings under reg. 57(3)(h), then reg. 58(14) never comes into play.
Decision A-0167.85
Full Text of Decision A-0167.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in holding that it is not necessary to classify vacation pay as earnings to authorize allocation thereof. Vacation pay, to be subject to allocation under reg. 58, must be earnings as defined by reg. 57.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision A-1223.83
Full Text of Decision A-1223.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that the payment does not fall under former reg. 173(20), so it is not earnings. The Board's decision that the monies were earnings under reg. 172 was proper, so that it then became necessary that they be allocated under 173. Reg. 173(1)is clear.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A0159.13
Full Text of Decision A0159.13
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
The claimant worked for Ford until March 18, 2011 and on termination of his employment, he received a severance pay in the amount of $125,000. He then worked for General Dynamics until March 16, 2012. The Commission determined that the severance pay from Ford constituted earnings within the meaning of the EIR and should be allocated starting March 18, 2011 (the date of his termination with Ford). The FCA determined that the lump sum severance payment of $125,000 constituted “earnings” that must be allocated following termination of employment, pursuant to the EIR. The FCA also confirmed that the $125,000 payment from Ford was not a payment from a supplemental unemployment insurance plan for the purposes of section 37 of the EIR.
Decision A0453.12
Full Text of Decision A0453.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
The claimant was laid off in April 2009. He received an amount as severance pay and for vacation pay. He attended at a Commission office to apply for benefits and he was told that he would have to wait to apply for benefits since he har received a severance pay. On a subsequent visit in June 2009, he was informed that he would qualify immediately for benefits. When he received cheques for the period from April to June 2009, he tried to return the cheques to the Commission as the claimant knew that he had to wait to collect benefits because he had received a severance pay. He was informed that he could not return the cheques. The Commission then attempted to calculate how the severance pay and vacation pay should be allocated. However, the Commission used the wrong amount as the normal weekly earnings. The only issue in this judicial review application is whether the Umpire correctly determined the questions of law and whether his application iof the facts to the law was reasonable. The application for judicial review is dismissed. The FCA's decision can be found at this address: http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/64485/index.do
Decision 74797
Full Text of Decision 74797
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
The issue before the BOR had been a correct allocation of earnings. The Brd were in error in law when they failed to apply s. 36(9) of the EI Regulations, which provides that the allocation begins with the week of the layoff or separation from employment. In this case, the claimant stopped working for his former employer in March of 2008 but he was separated from that employment when the company closed in January of 2009. The separation monies were paid to the claimant in February 2009 and because the separation occurred when the company closed in January, these earnings had to be allocated from January to October in accordance with s. 36(9) of the Regulations. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 74720
Full Text of Decision 74720
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Mr. X claims the BOR erred in the allocation of monies receive as he was no longer an employee of the company when the monies were determined and paid out pursuant to a settlement agreement. It is recognized that settlement agreements that are connected to a separation of employment may have an amount that is not calculated as earnings under the Act. The Board determined that despite the view of the settlement held by the claimant, there was no evidence to support his claim, the funds were paid out as separation monies. Clearly the money paid out to the claimant by the employer was in recognition of the termination of the employer-employee relationship. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A0007.06
Full Text of Decision A0007.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
The Umpire and the BOR have correctly concluded that the amount of $14,903.86 received by the claimant from a trustee in bankruptcy represented a payment of $8,221.17 for vacation pay and a payment of $6,682.69 for severance pay. The two amounts constituted earnings within the meaning of section 35 of the EIR, and these earnings were to be allocated in accordance with subsection 36(9) of the EIR. The FCA ruled that it cannot intervene in the findings of fact made by the Umpire and the BOR unless these findings are unreasonable (Budhai and Dunsmuir).
Decision 49308
Full Text of Decision 49308
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off in July 1997 but elected not to receive his severance pay immediately in order to retain his recall rights with employer. Final separation occurred in 1999. Monies considered earnings and allocated from July 1999 i.e. at the time of the permanent termination of employment. Decision maintained by Umpire. Reference made to FCA in Walford (A-0263.78) and CUBs 43198 and 24614.
Decision 49309
Full Text of Decision 49309
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off on 29-11-1996, but it was not until November 1997 that the employer, in accordance with the Act respecting Labour Standards, paid him his full pay in lieu of notice. Earnings allocated effective November 1996 and decision upheld by the Umpire. It is the reason or grounds for payment and not the date of payment that determines when the allocation should be done. This money was payable when the claimant could legally demand payment.
Decision 40302
Full Text of Decision 40302
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Following the plant closure, clmts received a lump sum they could invest into becoming a member of a co-operative or in a pension plan. Referring to the statement made fy FC in Tashereau (A.795.92), Umpire found that this amount constituted earnings subsequent to the layoff, regardless of the method of investment chosen by clmts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
lump sum |
|
Decision A-0106.96
Full Text of Decision A-0106.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Lay-off on 14-12-90. One year later, on 15-12-91, final closing of the plant and separation incentive paid to the claimant in accordance with the Labour Standards Act. Allocation of severance pay retroactively from 16-12-90. Umpire was of the view that the payment was the result of the plant closure and that the amount should be allocated only as of 15-12-91. **Decision overturned by the FCA, which determined that the liability to pay arose from the Labour Standards Act. The FCA noted that the regulations on earnings paid or payable by reason of lay-off or separation from an employment apply not only to permanent loss of employment but also to temporary stoppage of work. Disctinction made between this case and judgment rendered by FCA in King (A-486-95).
Decision 35046
Full Text of Decision 35046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Supplement of $16,896.88 paid to claimant by Dept. of National Defence under the Civilian Reduction Program and allocated under R.58(9). It was suggested that part of the supplement be allocated under R.58(15). Denied. Held that monies were paid by reason of a separation from the employment.
Decision A-0704.95
Full Text of Decision A-0704.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Teacher who received $545 as accumulated sick leave when her employment contract expired. Umpire found that Kinkead (A-217-93) applied, that the compensation was a direct result of the work contract and that the separation merely provided the opportunity. Judgment overturned by the FCA. The FCA reiterated its position taken in Kinkead, explaining that the Umpire had shifted the focus. Payment was made "as a result of" the separation, within the meaning of the text, when it became due and payable upon actual termination of the employment. The obligation it was intended to fulfil was only potential as long as the job continued and would only materialize, becoming liquid and payable, when the employment actually came to an end.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
Decision 29246
Full Text of Decision 29246
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Teacher who at the end of her employment contract receives $545 for accumulated sick leave. Held that KINKEAD applies, that the contract is the direct cause for the compensation and that the termination of employment is only the occasion.
Decision 29168
Full Text of Decision 29168
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
KINKEAD explained. If the 1990 vacation pay was not paid because of the employer's poor payment practices and the payment in 11-91 was merely made "on the occasion of" the separation from employment, rather than by reason of it, then those amounts should not be allocated as earnings.
Decision 27140
Full Text of Decision 27140
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
The lump sum payment would not have been payable if the pension had not been terminated due to financial difficulties which brought about the closure of the mine. Thus, the payment of monies arises out of the severance of the employer-employee relationship and also falls within the ambit of 58(9).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
retroactive increases |
|
| earnings |
pension |
plan surplus including interests |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Decision 23924
Full Text of Decision 23924
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0076.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision A-0076.94
Full Text of Decision A-0076.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Compensatory pay for statutory holidays. The sum became payable to claimant and was paid to her as a consequence of her layoff. It follows that, regardless of the nature of those earnings and of the period in respect of which they were payable, they had to be allocated pursuant to ss. 58(9).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
Decision 24593
Full Text of Decision 24593
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Claimant's vacation pay from 1972 to 1982 held by mutual agreement and not paid to claimant until upon separation from employment in 1990. Held that the monies are to be allocated following the last day worked. [NOTE: KINKEAD case decided by FC on 16-5-94 not referred to]
Decision A-0217.93
Full Text of Decision A-0217.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
The employer's failure to pay the vacation pay when it became due and payable and the fact that it was paid in full at the time of the employee's separation does not alter the nature of the payment made "at the time" of separation into a payment made by "reason" of that separation.**The 4% vacation pay, payable every 15 weeks pursuant to the work contract, was not paid. Total amount paid after 37 weeks upon termination. The amount due and payable (re the first 30 weeks) prior to the termination was not paid by reason of the layoff; the balance was paid.**It does not necessarily follow merely from the fact that under the work contract, vacation pay became due and payable before the day of the lay-off, payment is made "at the time" rather than "by reason" of the separation. Considerations must be given to all provisions of the contract.**The time at which vacation is paid may well coincide with that of the layoff, without the payment being made by reason of that event. The day of the layoff therefore, constitutes the time and not the cause of the payment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Decision 20723A
Full Text of Decision 20723A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0217.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Decision 26891
Full Text of Decision 26891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
following recall |
|
Summary:
Terminated 27-9-91 when plant closed. Severance pay received 11-10-91. Returned to work 5-11-91 as part of a clean-up crew at the same hourly wage. Worked until 17-7-92. CUBs 17529 and 23693 referred to. Separation occurred 27-9-91. Allocation not to be interrupted by subsequent employment.
Decision 26464
Full Text of Decision 26464
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
following recall |
|
Summary:
Supervisor of security programs. End of operations; severance pay received.Was recalled to work 16 days later, as a security officer, and worked for 7 days. CUB 23693 examined. Held that this did not have the effect of extending the allocation of the severance pay.
Decision 26012
Full Text of Decision 26012
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
following recall |
|
Summary:
Separation monies allocated from date of separation in 1-92. Allocation revised following claimant's recall by same employer from 4-92 to 8-92. The Board did not err in law when it ruled that the initial allocation of the monies should not be amended pursuant to ss. 58(9).
Decision 24901
Full Text of Decision 24901
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
following recall |
|
Summary:
Plant closed in 12-90. Severance pay received while reemployed from 14-1-91 to 6-91 by a subsidiary 100% owned by last employer. The question is whether the allocation should be handled concurrently rather than consecutively during the weeks of employment. I am in accord with CUB_20126.
Decision 23693
Full Text of Decision 23693
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
following recall |
|
Summary:
Some time after being paid termination monies, claimant was called back by the same employer to do contract work. Held that salary arising out of new employment does not have the effect of delaying the allocation of termination monies, since ss. 58(9) refers to earnings from "that employment".
Decision T1777.18
Full Text of Decision T1777.18
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
The claimant challenged the decision of the Appeal Division which denied the leave to appeal of the SST - General Division decision confirming that she owes an EI overpayment of $4497 pursuant to section 43 and 47 of the EI Act. The General Division found that the money the claimant received constituted earnings under subsection 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, because the payment compensated her for her dismissal. The General Division found the claimant liable to repay any amount the Commission paid her as benefits to which she was not entitled under section 43 of the Employment Insurance Act. the Appeal Division refused the application for leave to appeal because the appeal had no reasonable chance of success. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Decision A-0277.01
Full Text of Decision A-0277.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
The monies were paid as a result of a grievance and the grievance was in relation to the issue of severance pay. Held by umpire that the severance is directly related to work and earnings and as such it had to be considered as being earnings and allocated accordingly. Making reference to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision in King (A-0486.95), the FCA summarily dismissed the application for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
Decision 51134
Full Text of Decision 51134
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0277.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
Decision A-0207.99
Full Text of Decision A-0207.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid upon lay-off and allocated from separation. Claimant alleged that previously she used to get her v.p. in the weeks preceeding her lay-off and that no allocation was done. The payroll however was relocated in the USA and employees were no longer paid v.p. unless they were actually taking time off. Claimant did not take vacation time. Umpire refused to interfere with the BOR findings and the FCA summarily dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Decision 44001
Full Text of Decision 44001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0207.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Decision A-0051.97
Full Text of Decision A-0051.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Retroactive allocation of a separation incentive and severance pay resulting in an overpayment of $10,042. Amounts paid if the claimant had not yet returned to work a year after being laid off and remained on the recall list for two additional years. Citing Savarie (A-704-95), the CFA confirmed the application of 58(9), specifying that it was the lay-off that triggered the application of the collective agreement clause and gave rise to this conditional but already existing obligation to pay.
Decision A-0741.95
Full Text of Decision A-0741.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Commission decided that layoff pay was earnings and should be allocated effective the date of the layoff according to Reg. 57 and 58(9). Umpire upheld this decision since it was consistent with the Commission’s regulations. FCA dismissed the claimant’s appeal since there were no grounds for intervention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision A-0500.95
Full Text of Decision A-0500.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Case similar to FCA in King (A-0486.95). Refer to summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
| earnings |
income |
provincial program |
|
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| earnings |
relief grants |
|
|
Decision A-0486.95
Full Text of Decision A-0486.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Temporary layoff on 2-01-91. Plant closure in 03-91. No monies paid except $5,000 received later under the Ontario Employee Wage Protection Program. Held that the payment was made by reason of the plant closure, not the layoff, so would be allocated from the plant closure. Commission's appeal dismissed on that issue but allowed on determination of earnings by the FCA.**NOTE: Based on the specifics of the case and on the definition of the word "termination" in the Ontario Employment Standards Act, Commission did not challenge the allocation for that particular case to the Supreme Court.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
provincial program |
|
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| earnings |
relief grants |
|
|
Decision A-0560.94
Full Text of Decision A-0560.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Terminated 5-10-90 due to bankruptcy. Worked for trustees from 22-10-90 to 14-12-90. Sev. pay paid in 11-91 under the Ontario Wage Protection Program. Held that working for trustees was not for same employer and that sev. pay was to be allocated to weeks following bankruptcy. Upheld by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 25305
Full Text of Decision 25305
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0560.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 26075A
Full Text of Decision 26075A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid in anticipation of liquidation and closure of mine. Rehired immediately by the Receiver and worked 9 months. Held that he continued in effect for the same employer, that he suffered no separation until expiration of those 9 months and monies to be allocated from that separation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
Decision 29159
Full Text of Decision 29159
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Severance pay allocated, as per the labour agreement, after UI benefits have been exhausted. The Commission argues that this is a private contract and should not govern the UI Act which is a public act of Parliament and that ss. 58(9) applies as from the layoff date. Held that the Board erred in law.
Decision 29075
Full Text of Decision 29075
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Leave without pay from Air Canada granted on 7-12-92; begins work with new employmer on the same day where he works until 1-4-93; on that same day Air Canada advises him of his layoff and pays him severance pay. The said severance pay to be allocated as of 1-4-93, not 7-12-92.
Decision 28501
Full Text of Decision 28501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Temporary layoff 2-1-91. Plant closure 3-91. No monies paid, except $5,000 received later under the Ontario Wage Protection Program. Held that the payment was made by reason of the plant closure, not the layoff, so would be allocated from date of plant closure, if not considered as relief grants.
Decision 28148
Full Text of Decision 28148
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Canadian General Electric: income extension benefits payable once the claimant has exhausted his UI benefits. Held that such monies are to be allocated retroactively, pursuant to ss. 58(10.1) of the Regulations, as from the week of layoff.
Decision 26324
Full Text of Decision 26324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Lumberjack laid off permanently in 12-91. Received severance pay in 5-92. Claimed that he had a recall right until 6-92. Allocation to be made according to ss. 58(9) of the Regulations, as of 12-91, regardless of whether there was a collective agreement and he had a right of recall.
Decision 24991
Full Text of Decision 24991
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off in 11-92. In accordance with the Ontario Employment Standards Act, he was paid wages in lieu of notice in 2-93, i.e. 13 weeks after layoff. Held that the monies were properly allocated from the 11-92 layoff rather than from 2-93.
Decision 24983
Full Text of Decision 24983
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 29-9-92. Under his contract, he could request half of his severance pay 6 weeks after and the last half 3 months after, i.e. 29-12-92. He requested all of it 8-4-93 and received it 27-5-93. Held that it was properly allocated starting in 12-92, this date being the triggering event.
Decision 24910
Full Text of Decision 24910
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Temporarily laid off in 2-92. Then the plant closed in 4-92. Nothing was payable until the employer determined that he had no alternative but to close. This triggered the "payable date". No indication in 2-92 that the plant was to close. Monies to be allocated from 4-92, not 2-92.
Decision 24614
Full Text of Decision 24614
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off indefinitely in 9-90. He accepted to sign off his recall notice in 12-91. This generated the payment of severance pay in 1-92. The date of the sign-off and the payment of severance to claimant is the date of termination. Monies to be allocated under ss. 58(9) starting 1-92.
Decision 24607
Full Text of Decision 24607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off in 2-92 retaining his recall rights. Following the 13-week period required by the Ontario Employment Standards Act, not having been recalled, he received pay in lieu of notice and vacation pay. Monies to be allocated from 2-92, not from 6-92. The Board clearly erred in law.
Decision 24470
Full Text of Decision 24470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 5-2-91 with vacation pay allocated. Severance pay not allocated to him until 4-7-91 when he waived his recall rights having secured new employment. Claimant became eligible to severance pay upon layoff and regardless when he elects to receive it, it shall be allocated from week of layoff in 2-91.
Decision 24158
Full Text of Decision 24158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Ceased for Algoma in 7-90 due to labour dispute. Found work elsewhere. He then severed his ties with Algoma in 8-91. Amounts paid, referable to a layoff, are to be allocated to the weeks following the layoff (8-91). No scope for allocating amounts paid to a period following a prior layoff (7-90).
Ceased for Algoma in 7-90 due to labour dispute. Found work elsewhere. He then severed his ties with Algoma in 8-91. Under ss. 58(9), the amount received in 8-91 was earnings paid. The amount paid in 12-91 was, prior to that date, earnings payable. Nothing turns on the 12-91 payment or date.
Decision 23977
Full Text of Decision 23977
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Improved severance pay allocated under separate agreement a few months after termination. It is argued for claimant that this was a transaction under para. 58(18)(b). While this was a transaction, (18) only applies where none of the other provisions of s. 58 apply. Retrospective allocation upheld.
Decision 23827
Full Text of Decision 23827
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 31-8-90. Not recalled 3-12-90 as planned, layoff extended to 1-3-91 and then employment was terminated. Under the Ontario Act, termination pay is payable when the layoff is for more than 13 weeks and was paid in 4-91. Monies correctly allocated from the date of layoff starting 2-9-90.
Decision 23806
Full Text of Decision 23806
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant submits that the amount he received in termination pay should be allocated as to when he received it, not when it was purported to be earned. This is clearly not the law as shown by ss. 58(9) and several decisions of Umpires in CUBs 14854, 18957, 17529, among others.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
Decision 23565
Full Text of Decision 23565
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 7-12-91. Recalled 13-3-92. Because the layoff exceeded 90 days, the employer was required to pay to claimant, and did pay her, 8 weeks wages in lieu of notice. CUB 14989 distinguished. Monies received after return to work correctly allocated under ss. 58(9) from 8-12-91.
Decision 22845
Full Text of Decision 22845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
L'indemnité de départ doit s'ajouter à la paye de vacances et être répartie de façon consécutive à partir de la semaine du licenciement et non concurremment comme en a décidé le Conseil. Depuis les modifications apportées en 1989 au par. 58(9), l'affaire NICOLICH ne trouve plus application.
Decision 22730
Full Text of Decision 22730
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 3-10-89 one day before the strike. No evidence that he was ever recalled or subject to recall. Notice given by employer to Minister of Labour of intention to terminate operations 2-90. Termination monies paid to claimant in 4-90 correctly allocated by Board from 3-10-89, not from 2-90.
Decision 22547
Full Text of Decision 22547
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant received the monies on 30-3-91 (closure of the plant) whereas his last day of work was 26-7-91. The Board erred in fact in not determining that they were paid by reason of the anticipated closure of the plant, and in law in failing to allocate them from the date of separation under 58(9).
In order for earnings to be allocated pursuant to ss. 58(9) the event giving rise to the payment of the monies must first be identified. Was it a layoff or separation from the employment that resulted in the payment to the claimant of the monies?
Decision 20263
Full Text of Decision 20263
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0903.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
maternity leave |
|
Decision A-0903.91
Full Text of Decision A-0903.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Insurable bonus of $6,000 paid during maternity leave. The plan provided for $600 per month in 2 lump sums: 1 for September to December paid in September, the other for January to June paid in January. Not paid at time of, after or in contemplation of layoff under 58(9). To be allocated under 58(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
maternity leave |
|
Decision 22491
Full Text of Decision 22491
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant was laid off 8-89. He received severance pay in 2-90. The Board referred to CUB 14989 to distinguish between the temporary layoff in 8-89 and permanent layoff in 2-90 and applied ss. 58(9) in relation to permanent layoff in 2-90. Held by the Umpire that a permanent layoff occurred in 8-89.
Decision 22437
Full Text of Decision 22437
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Clearly, ss. 58(9) requires allocation of earnings paid in contemplation of lay-off no matter when paid: CUB 21691. Here, the «triggering event» for the payment of termination pay and vacation pay was the anticipated plant closure. Monies to be allocated starting with the week of plant closure.
Laid off prior to 1-1-90, some recalled. Anticipated plant closure 2-2-90. The plant never did completely close, and some rehired. All received vacation and termination monies in 6-90. Irrelevant whether layoff was temporary and whether plant eventually closed. Monies to be allocated from 28-1-90.
Ss. 58(9) refers to a lay-off or separation. With respect to the claimants' argument that the employment relationship was not severed until they abandoned their recall rights, I agree that this may be so in the context of the Employment Standards Act, but not in an unemployment insurance context.
Decision 22179
Full Text of Decision 22179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Last day worked 31-7-90. Ceased due to strike. End of strike 4-11-90. Lay-off notices also effective that date. It is argued that vacation pay should have been paid 7 days after 31-7 rather than in 11-90. There was sufficient evidence to hold that the lay-off or separation occurred on 4-11-90.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
Decision 21952
Full Text of Decision 21952
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Severance pay paid in 4-90 correctly allocated retroactively from the date of layoff in 9-89.
Decision 21930
Full Text of Decision 21930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Notice paid under new work standards legislation providing there is discontinuance of employer-employee relationship when the employee has not worked for more than six consecutive months for the employer. Sum correctly distributed as of dismissal date.
Decision 21773
Full Text of Decision 21773
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Construction worker receiving a day's wages in lieu of notice after completing a week's work; clauses 16.01 and 16.03 of decree examined. Decided that the in lieu of notice should be distributed pursuant to Reg. 58(9) over the next week.
Decision 21517
Full Text of Decision 21517
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
On layoff status since 6-89. Signed off his recall rights on 15-3-90 thereby terminating his employment. In accordance with the Ontario Employment Standards Act, severance pay was paid by cheque to him on 20-4-90. The week in which separation occurs here is that of 11-3-90.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
gross amount |
|
Decision 21512
Full Text of Decision 21512
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Quits work 3-5-90; does not know if he will be called back; his vacation pay is finally paid out 24-11-90. Correctly distributed pursuant to Reg. 58(9) as of 5-90.
Decision 21412
Full Text of Decision 21412
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
According to contract, dismissal compensation payable in 2 parts: one after 6 consecutive weeks of layoff, the other after 3 months. Correctly distributed based on dismissal pursuant to Reg. 58(9.1) even though insured was not unemployed when he received the second payment.
Decision 21384
Full Text of Decision 21384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 17-1-91. Would normally have received severance pay on 19-4-91 (after 13 weeks). Resigned 28-2 so as to remove her name from the re-call list and get the money immediately. Monies properly allocated under reg. 58(10) from last day worked.
Decision 20979
Full Text of Decision 20979
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Six-week trainee in renovation; not remunerated; hired at the end of the training period, he was paid the commissions collected during the training period; says there was no work contract and that Reg. 58(9) applies. Decision is that this is not termination of employment but employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
commissions |
|
|
Decision 19344
Full Text of Decision 19344
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0367.91
Decision A-0367.91
Full Text of Decision A-0367.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Elected to take receipt of severance pay on a week by week basis in an amount not exceeding 25% of UI rate and argues that ss.15(2) applies. Regulating power of 44(q) and GIROUX examined. Ss. 58(10.1) applies and monies properly allocated to full weeks. Upheld by FC.
Decision 19766
Full Text of Decision 19766
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
In the context of the Act, a suspension without pay is equivalent to a loss of employment or a separation from employment. As a result, monies received as settlement must be allocated from the week of separation (suspension without pay) rather than fromfinal termination. [p._9]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Decision 19238
Full Text of Decision 19238
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Dismissed 7-10-88 and files complaint; no salary granted as job found elsewhere for better salary. $2,000 amount paid conditional to total severance of employment relationship 7-2-90, breakdown to be allocated as of 7-2-90, not 7-10-88 under Reg. 58(9).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Decision 18275
Full Text of Decision 18275
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off 6-11-87. Severance pay payable and paid 9 months after. It was paid in respect of his final termination which occurred when the recall priority period terminated 8-8-88, 9 months after his lay-off. Correctly allocated as of 8-88.
Decision 18117
Full Text of Decision 18117
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
The company indicated that the settlement of $10,500 is directed to the 2 weeks following termination. Under reg. 58(10.1) any severance payment, regardless of the method applied either by the employer or employee, should be allocated equal to the weekly rate of normal earnings.
Decision 17805
Full Text of Decision 17805
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Severance pay to be paid over 15 months in 6 equal payments. Reg. 58(10.1) makes it clear that all severance pay regardless of how paid or allocated by employer, must be allocated on a weekly basis.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Decision 17564
Full Text of Decision 17564
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
As a result of the plant closure, the employer negotiated an agreement with union whereby severance payments would be paid on 5 specific dates over a 15-month period. To be allocated week by week under reg. 58(10.1) regardless of how monies are paid.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision 17529
Full Text of Decision 17529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Operation closed, claimant terminated 27-3 and was paid all monies due. Rehired 30-3 until 30-10 to complete the plant closure. Termination monies to be allocated under reg. 58(10.1) and 58(13)(b) not from 30-10 but from 30-3, the date of separation giving rise to the payment.
Decision 15268
Full Text of Decision 15268
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0716.88
Decision A-0716.88
Full Text of Decision A-0716.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Severance pay and vacation pay allocated from week of layoff 16-2 to 30-3. The Umpire was correct in allocating damages under 58(5)(b) from date of layoff rather than from 30-3. Ss. 58(5) does not prohibit allocation in excess of normal earnings. Regulations amended since.
Decision 16336
Full Text of Decision 16336
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Laid off on 14-11-86 and receives benefits; receives vacation pay of $2208 6 months later; amount is spread in accordance with 58(10) starting on the date of termination of employment in 11-86.
Decision 15895
Full Text of Decision 15895
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Prior to 4-10-87, reg.58(9) permitted employers to allocate severance pay to a specific period. This possibility was terminated by enactment of reg. 58(10.1) which provides that severance pay, regardless of how paid or allocated by employer, must be allocated on a weekly basis.
Decision A-0644.87
Full Text of Decision A-0644.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
The Umpire did not err in finding that the termination allowance became payable when claimant left her employment on 29-5-85, rather than when she first elected to retire on 1-3-85. New agreement signed 21-3-85 effective same date.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
Decision 13538
Full Text of Decision 13538
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0644.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
Decision 14989
Full Text of Decision 14989
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Seasonal layoff 23-3-86; then claimant terminated while on layoff; severance and vacation pay issued 1-5-86 allocated from 23-3. Error of law and fact. Severance did not go back to initial layoff. It did not occur until 1-5. Allocation must run from 1-5.
Decision 14854
Full Text of Decision 14854
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
No doubt that the severance pay is earnings due to legislative changes in 3-85. Claimant on layoff since 12-85. Decision to close plant taken in 2-86 and severance pay then paid. Paid in respect of separation which occurred 28-2-86 and to be allocated from that date, not 12-85.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision A-1235.84
Full Text of Decision A-1235.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Summary:
Notice payable under Labour Standards Act if lay-off is for at least 6 months. Insured laid off for an indefinite period, which ended up lasting longer than 6 months. Held that the compensation paid after 6 months was payable at time of lay-off. Leave denied by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
Decision 20126
Full Text of Decision 20126
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
concurrent |
Summary:
NICOLICH not applicable since changes brought to Act in 1987. I see nothing in Reg. 58(10.1) indicating it is possible to have double distribution of remuneration during the same week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
in lieu of |
Decision 76208
Full Text of Decision 76208
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
defined |
Summary:
The claimant was hired as a residential manager at a salary to be paid monthly. The employer also rented an apartment to the claimant for which the monthly rental was equal to her monthly salary. It was agreed that if she did not pay the rent it would be deducted from her salary. Therefore, the claimant did not receive an actual pay cheque. While working under this arrangement the claimant was also in receipt of E. I. benefits and, since she did not receive any dollars in her hands, she did not report any earnings. The Commission was made aware of the salary being paid to her resulting in an overpayment. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 55327
Full Text of Decision 55327
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
defined |
Summary:
Claimant argued that the performance incentive bonus did form part of her weekly earnings as it was earned based on her work performance throughout the year, on a week by week basis. Umpire recognizes that the claimant is right in arguing that her performance bonus forms part of her "normal yearly earnings" but, referring to the FCA decision in Michael Fox (A-0841.96), he held that the bonus could not be considered as an amount that the claimant "received or earned on a regular basis".
Decision A-0841.96
Full Text of Decision A-0841.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
defined |
Summary:
FCA concluded that the Umpire erred in including amounts for vac. pay, an annual incentive allowance and a 25-year service award as part of the claimant's normal weekly earnings. Court ruled that the term normal weekly earnings means the ordinary, usual earnings that a claimant receives or earns on a regular basis and does not include the amounts in question here, which are more properly characterized as fring benefits or extra amounts.
Decision 35026
Full Text of Decision 35026
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
defined |
Summary:
Statutory scheme does not define NWE. Commission's position is that only monies paid regularly to claimant should be included as NWE. Denied by Umpire and Commission directed to include V.P., incentive allowance and the 25-year service award in NWE for allocation purposes. Decision appealed to FCA.
NOTE: The Commission is of the opinion that the expression "normal weekly earnings" for allocation purposes must be given its plain meaning, i.e., what is included on the employee's bi-weekly paycheque. There is also no jurisprudence at the Federal Court level on this issue.
Decision 65565
Full Text of Decision 65565
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
fringe benefits |
Summary:
Jurisprudence clearly establishes that amounts paid as employee fringe benefits are not part of a claimant's normal weekly earnings.
Decision 35855
Full Text of Decision 35855
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
fringe benefits |
Summary:
The normal weekly earnings(NWE) is not defined in the Act or Reg. Facts on file will indicate which hourly rate of pay paid by the employer was used to determine the NWE. Held by Umpire that it would be inconceivable that a NWE would be determined outside the ROE.
Decision 27316
Full Text of Decision 27316
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
fringe benefits |
Summary:
Claimant argued that the severance payment included 15% for benefits usually covered in such settlements, i.e. holidays, sick benefits and others. The Board ruled that the allocation was correctly made on the basis of normal gross weekly earnings excluding fringe benefits. Ruling upheld by Umpire.
Decision 27106
Full Text of Decision 27106
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
fringe benefits |
Summary:
Severance pay allocated to claimant. The question is whether the Board erred in law when it decided that fringe benefits should be included in the determination of normal weekly earnings. The reasoning in CUB 4499 is supportive of the Commission's position. The Board misapplied the facts to the law.
Decision 25263
Full Text of Decision 25263
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
fringe benefits |
Summary:
Severance pay based on 18 months' salary plus certain fringe benefits were allocated over a period of more than 20 months. Held that the definition of the word 'earnings' in s. 57 and 58 is the same and that, in this case, fringe benefits were to be included in calculating 'normal weekly earnings'.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 24992
Full Text of Decision 24992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
fringe benefits |
Summary:
Claimant said that the settlement included an increase in his weekly earnings to reflect extra expenses. There was no evidence of any such adjustment in his salary. Where the settlement is silent as to adjustments of the nature suggested, the normal allocation (weekly salary) must be followed.
Decision 20395
Full Text of Decision 20395
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
in lieu of |
Summary:
The insured ceased working Friday 8-12-89 and was paid 8 hours in lieu of notice. CUB-20126 examined. Reg. 58(9) clearly indicates that remuneration, like the notice, cannot be added to a full week's work; it must be distributed over the following.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
Decision 20328
Full Text of Decision 20328
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
in lieu of |
Summary:
Works from 12 to 16-6-89 and gets paid 8 hours notice. It has been well-established that when one has received one's full salary for the layoff week, the notice is distributed over the following week; Reg. 58(10.1). NICOLICH does not apply since the 1987 changes.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
Decision 20126
Full Text of Decision 20126
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
in lieu of |
Summary:
The insured ceases working on Friday 22-9-89 after working a full week; 8-hours salary paid in lieu of notice. The Board mistaken in coming to conclusion that notice should have been distributed over the last week of work rather than the following week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
concurrent |
Decision 19827
Full Text of Decision 19827
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
in lieu of |
Summary:
Salary in lieu of notice, as added to salary of last week of work must be distributed according to Reg. 58(10.1) so as not to exceed the remuneration of one-week's work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
Decision 17722
Full Text of Decision 17722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
in lieu of |
Summary:
The Board made a mistake in deciding that the amount paid as advance notice should, in view of the collective agreement, be added to the last working week of the claimant rather than distributed, beginning with the week when he was laid off.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
Decision 18458
Full Text of Decision 18458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
others |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0691.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
Decision A-0691.90
Full Text of Decision A-0691.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
others |
Summary:
Part-time teacher who stopped working on Thursday 30-6-88. Having received her normal salary for the last week of work, payment for sick leave was correctly distributed, on the basis of her normal salary, as from the following week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
Decision 63865
Full Text of Decision 63865
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
overtime |
Summary:
A claimant's normal weekly earnings mean "the ordinary, usual earnings that a claimant receives or earns on a regular basis" and does not include amounts received otherwise. In this case, it cannot be said that the claimant's overtime was part of his normal weekly earnings, none having been paid for some months.
Decision 14859
Full Text of Decision 14859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
overtime |
Summary:
Calculation to be done without reference to any amounts earned by claimant during the week of 18-5-86 which is not normal weekly earnings (i.e. overtime pay on account of a statutory holiday).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
overtime |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Decision A-0857.77
Full Text of Decision A-0857.77
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
overtime |
Summary:
Construction worker in Quebec who regularly worked overtime totalling 84 hours per week. The word "normal" must be given its usual meaning, and regard had to the earnings he regularly received. Judgment upheld by the FC without comment.
Decision 22023
Full Text of Decision 22023
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
part-time |
Summary:
On his application for benefit the claimant stated his normal weekly hours to be 24 and his wage rate to be $18.00 per hour, resulting in normal weekly earnings of $432.00. It was appropriate for the Commission to allocate the sum of $432.00 to each of the weeks commencing 10-2.
Decision 14101
Full Text of Decision 14101
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
part-time |
Summary:
Severance pay allocated on the basis of former wages based on part-time work. Claimant says it should be allocated over a lesser period of time, on the basis of weekly wage which was $460 had he worked full-time. The Commission agreed and conceded.
Decision A-0207.99
Full Text of Decision A-0207.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Summary:
Vacation pay paid upon lay-off and allocated from separation. Claimant alleged that previously she used to get her v.p. in the weeks preceeding her lay-off and that no allocation was done. The payroll however was relocated in the USA and employees were no longer paid v.p. unless they were actually taking time off. Claimant did not take vacation time. Umpire refused to interfere with the BOR findings and the FCA summarily dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 44001
Full Text of Decision 44001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0207.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 29034
Full Text of Decision 29034
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Summary:
Even though the normal work week is 45 hours, vacation pay is calculated at 4% of gross earnings or 80 hours at regular rate, whichever is greater, for each week of vacation. Held that this does not define a normal work week. Rather, it is a formula for calculation of vacation pay.
Decision 20060
Full Text of Decision 20060
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Summary:
Part of the vacation pay was allocated to week ending 7-10 because he had not worked a full week and therefore his actual wages received were less than his normal earnings. Therefore some of the vacation pay could be allocated to that week with the restto the following week.
Decision 19850
Full Text of Decision 19850
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
vac. pay |
Summary:
Claimant is not entitled to have his vacation pay allocated to the same week in which he received his lay-day pay. In this case the Act requires that the allocation of vacation pay is to be to the period following termination at his normal weekly earnings.
Decision 47415
Full Text of Decision 47415
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant had two jobs. The first ended on 6-06-97, and the claimant received $113,430 in severance pay (s.p.) and $10,067 in vacation pay (v.p.). The second job ended on 25-11-97, and the claimant received $51,500 in s.p. and $930 in v.p. According to the Umpire, all earnings paid to a claimant must be fully and completely allocated. The amounts paid in connection with the first job were paid during the qualifying period and must therefore be considered in their entirety until exhausted.
Decision 32382
Full Text of Decision 32382
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
While severance pay is being distributed, the beneficiary begins a new job. The Board concludes that the severance payment cannot be made during an employment period. Decision reversed: it is irrelevant whether the beneficiary works or not. Severance pay due as of first layoff.
Decision 21669
Full Text of Decision 21669
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
Ceased work in 3-90. Received severance pay. Worked for another employer from then on until temporarily laid off in 7-90. UI claim filed 7-90. Severance pay allocated from 3-90 to 11-90. Similar to CUB 16195. Neither the Act nor the Regulations impose amaximum period of allocation.
Decision 20852
Full Text of Decision 20852
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant received $52,088 from an employer as severance pay. He then worked 28 weeks for another employer and, upon termination, filed a UI claim. I adopt the reasons in CUB 16195: monies received from previous employer are earnings to be allocated under reg. 58.
Decision 20753
Full Text of Decision 20753
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
Severance pay allocated over a 15-month period during which claimant worked 20 weeks for another employer. Neither the Act nor the Regulations impose a maximum period of time over which earnings may be allocated. Parliament has not seen fit to so legislate.
Decision 19537
Full Text of Decision 19537
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
Monies received from one employer upon termination plus other monies received from last employer. Reg. 57(2)(a) is broad enough to cover any employment income earned at any time in the past, even years before a UI claim is made. No limiting provisions.
Decision 16195
Full Text of Decision 16195
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
Neither the Act nor the Regulations prescribe a maximum period of allocation. Termination monies allocated over a 3-year period during which claimant worked 7 months for another employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
dual employment |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
Decision 16144
Full Text of Decision 16144
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Summary:
In regard to reg. 58(13)(b) and claimant's complaint that his vacation pay came from his 2nd-last employer, there is as well reg. 59(2) to be noted. Nothing unthinkable about allocating the monies from his 2nd-last employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Decision A130.18
Full Text of Decision A130.18
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
separation from work |
|
Summary:
The claimant applied for sickness benefits in September 2015, he was told by the Commission that the pension income he was receiving from his union would have to be deducted from his benefits. The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal had concluded that the applicant’s pension from his trade union constituted earnings to be deducted from his sickness benefits, and the Appeal Division found no error in that decision. The application for judicial review should therefore be dismissed. The application for judicial review was dismissed. La demande de contrôle judiciaire a été rejetée.
Decision 77008
Full Text of Decision 77008
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
separation from work |
|
Summary:
An initial claim for employment insurance benefits was established. The Commission allocated the vacation, severance and wages in lieu of notice. The Board of Referees reviewed the legislation and jurisprudence governing allocations and correctly concluded that the Commission’s calculations were correct. As the Board stated, the problem arises because claimants are not properly informed when they are temporarily laid off that if the lay-off becomes permanent, any severance or vacation payments then made will be allocated back and an overpayment will result. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A0397.08
Full Text of Decision A0397.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
separation from work |
|
Summary:
The claimants were discharged from their employment due to the bankruptcy of their employer and received several payments such as vacation pay. This decision deals with the application of ss. 36(9) to 36(19) of the EIR with respect to the allocation of earnings. Based on Lemay v. Canada (2005 FCA 433), the FCA reiterated that s. 36(9) of the EIR covers any part of the earnings that becomes due and payable at the time of termination of the contract of employment and the commencement of unemployment. The FCA went on to conclude that s. 36(19) is inapplicable because it can only be used when ss. 36(1) to 36(18) are not applicable. Lastly, the FCA noted that s. 36(9) of the EIR puts emphasis on the motive of the payment rather than its timing.
Decision 41594
Full Text of Decision 41594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
separation from work |
|
Summary:
Two months after his lay-off, clmt received severance pay after learning that the plant was closing. Umpire ruled that the severance pay should be allocated as of the date of the official plant closure as it is the date of the event that gave rise to the severance payment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
|
|
Decision A-0369.99
Full Text of Decision A-0369.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked as an accountant for her husband and was paid annually. While on maternity leave, she continued to provide accounting services but stated that she only worked 2½ hours per week and that no person was hired to take over her duties. The BOR and the Umpire determined that she was employed under an oral contract of services for her husband and that the earnings had to be allocated to the period in which the services were performed, even during the maternity leave. The Court held that it was essentially a question of credibility and dismissed the claimant's application.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
allocation |
|
Decision 44649
Full Text of Decision 44649
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0369.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
allocation |
|
Decision 34087
Full Text of Decision 34087
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
While on claim, claimant received a director's fee of $10,000. Pursuant to par. 58(18)(a) of Reg., earnings from directorship were allocable to the annual period or term of directorship but only after the coming into force of par. 57(1)(c) of Reg. ie. September 20, 1993.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 18003
Full Text of Decision 18003
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
Part-time secretary hired the equivalent of 5 days per 2 weeks. She collected earnings according to the actual hours worked each week. The employer and CEIC had spread the amount evenly over each week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Decision 16470
Full Text of Decision 16470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
Sessional lecturer who, due to the location of the school, taught a full week each month rather than one day per week. She was hired under contract to perform certain services over a 4-month period and salary has to be allocated to the period specified in the contract.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 14565
Full Text of Decision 14565
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
Contract from 1-85 to 16-6-85 resulting from funding from government. Paid more than current part-time wages while on benefit for work to be done after funding ended. Worked without pay some weeks after 16-6-85. All earnings to be spread over contract period.
Decision 13116
Full Text of Decision 13116
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
The claimant determined the ways and methods of fulfilling his free-lance contract and the hours on a daily or continuing basis. I can see nothing wrong with this (the fact that monies were allocated equally over each week of the contract).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
as income |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Decision 11129
Full Text of Decision 11129
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Summary:
Lecturer who had 12 week contract and wanted earnings to be allocated according to services performed rather than uniformly over entire period.
Decision A0423.11
Full Text of Decision A0423.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services that gave rise |
|
Summary:
The claimants own a snow removal business. Services were provided over a period of 17 to 21 weeks each year. By applying section 35 of the EIR, the Commission divided the total gross income of the snow removal contracts on the weeks during which services were performed. The Commission did the same for the expenses incurred during this period. As for the business’ annual operating expenses, the Commission allocated these expenses over a period of 52 weeks and deducted from the gross income, the portion of the business’s annual operating expenses that were incurred during the weeks that services were performed. The net income was divided between the two claimants and allocated on the weeks during which services were performed pursuant to subsection 36(6) of the EIR. The FCA stated that the income mentioned in paragraph 35(10)(c) of the EIR does not refer to the annual income, but rather it is to calculate the earnings during the period in which services were performed and allocate this amount to the number of weeks included in the period in question as per subsection 36(6). The Court concluded that the operating expenses and annual expenses should be deducted from the gross income. (Similar cases: A0424.11 - A0425.11 - A0426.11 - A0427.11).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
deduction from benefits |
|
Decision 72290
Full Text of Decision 72290
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services that gave rise |
|
Summary:
Through an investigation, the Commission found that the claimant worked for an employer during the weeks from February 2002 to December 2002 and that he did not report his earnings. In his April 2007 statutory declaration, the claimant declared: that he may have worked during his benefit period but that he was paid only when the work had been completed, which was often much later. He said that he did not keep track of the commissions that were owed to him but that the employer's records were accurate. Consequently, the claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire because in accordance with 36(6) of the EIR, all earnings received shall be allocated to the week in which the services that gave rise to those earnings are performed.
Decision A0578.07
Full Text of Decision A0578.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Following the termination of the claimant's employment and the sale of the plant, the claimant received a lump sum payment originating from National Sea for contributions to a pension plan. The claimant was advised that the conclusion of the pension plan was effective following the sale of the plant. The Commission maintained that these contributions should be allocated persuant 36(9) of the EIR. According to the BOR, the earnings must be allocated in accordance with 36(19)(b) of the EIR because the conclusion of the pension plan was agreed to between the former employer and the employees. When the new owner took over the plant, the conclusion of the pension plan was not part of the contract discussions. The Umpire is satisfied that there was a causal connection between the conclusion of the pension, the sale of the plant and the termination of the employees. For these reasons, the decision of the BOR set aside and the Commission's appeal is allowed. Due to the connection between the termination of the pension plan and the sale of the property, the contributions must be considered earnings on separation from the former employer and should be allocated in accordance with 36(9) of the EIR. The main issue is if the payment made to the employee following the conclusion of the pension plan was caused by the sale of the plant or whether the conclusion up was an independent transaction as provided by 36(19)(b) of the EIR. The FCA concludes that the Umpire erred when he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the BOR. The FCA confirmed that the BOR had sufficient evidence before it to conclude as it did.
Decision A0580.07
Full Text of Decision A0580.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Following the termination of the claimant's employment and the sale of the plant, the claimant received a lump sum payment originating from National Sea for contributions to a pension plan. The claimant was advised that the conclusion of the pension plan was effective following the sale of the plant. The Commission maintained that these contributions should be allocated persuant 36(9) of the EIR. According to the BOR, the earnings must be allocated in accordance with 36(19)(b) of the EIR because the conclusion of the pension plan was agreed to between the former employer and the employees. When the new owner took over the plant, the conclusion of the pension plan was not part of the contract discussions. The Umpire is satisfied that there was a causal connection between the conclusion of the pension, the sale of the plant and the termination of the employees. For these reasons, the decision of the BOR set aside and the Commission's appeal is allowed. Due to the connection between the termination of the pension plan and the sale of the property, the contributions must be considered earnings on separation from the former employer and should be allocated in accordance with 36(9) of the EIR. The main issue is if the payment made to the employee following the conclusion of the pension plan was caused by the sale of the plant or whether the conclusion up was an independent transaction as provided by 36(19)(b) of the EIR. The FCA concludes that the Umpire erred when he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the BOR. The FCA confirmed that the BOR had sufficient evidence before it to conclude as it did.
Decision A0579.07
Full Text of Decision A0579.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Following the termination of the claimant's employment and the sale of the plant, the claimant received a lump sum payment originating from National Sea for contributions to a pension plan. The claimant was advised that the conclusion of the pension plan was effective following the sale of the plant. The Commission maintained that these contributions should be allocated persuant 36(9) of the EIR. According to the BOR, the earnings must be allocated in accordance with 36(19)(b) of the EIR because the conclusion of the pension plan was agreed to between the former employer and the employees. When the new owner took over the plant, the conclusion of the pension plan was not part of the contract discussions. The Umpire is satisfied that there was a causal connection between the conclusion of the pension, the sale of the plant and the termination of the employees. For these reasons, the decision of the BOR set aside and the Commission's appeal is allowed. Due to the connection between the termination of the pension plan and the sale of the property, the contributions must be considered earnings on separation from the former employer and should be allocated in accordance with 36(9) of the EIR. The main issue is if the payment made to the employee following the conclusion of the pension plan was caused by the sale of the plant or whether the conclusion up was an independent transaction as provided by 36(19)(b) of the EIR. The FCA concludes that the Umpire erred when he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the BOR. The FCA confirmed that the BOR had sufficient evidence before it to conclude as it did.
Decision 67529
Full Text of Decision 67529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
There is no evidence that showed a connection between the lump sum payment received by the claimant and the services she had previously rendered. All employees who met the condition for eligibility, whatever time the services were rendered, were entitled to the lump sum payment. There was necessarily a connection between employment and the entitlement to the lump sum payment but not in relation to services rendered. Application of paragraph 36(19)(b) of the Regulations. See also CUB 67528.
Decision 65888
Full Text of Decision 65888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
The pension wind-up and subsequent refund or rebate was not a result of a termination of employment or bankruptcy but as a result of an agreement between the employer and the union which received approval of Provincial Commissioner of Pensions. Umpire agreed with the Board of referees' decision that the payment arose from a transaction and must be allocated pursuant to Regulation 35(19)(b).
Decision 53378
Full Text of Decision 53378
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Collective agreement was signed on 17-01-2001 granting a lump sum of $1,000 a year for 1999 and 2000, calculated on the basis of the number of hours worked during these years. Amount allocated to the week of the event. BOR allowed the appeal, deciding that this was a retroactive pay increase. Decision overturned by the Umpire who, referring to the decision in CUB 41845, ruled that it was the signing of the collective agreement that created the right to be paid the lump sum.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Decision 53100
Full Text of Decision 53100
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Bonus of $625 paid when agreement signed. Despite a tentative agreement was reached on March 31, the bonus could not be paid unless and until the agreement was ratified. Reference made to FCA A-1105.90.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Decision 41845
Full Text of Decision 41845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Argument made that the signing bonus did not arise from a "transaction" but from the performance of prior services. The employer stressed the fact that the entitlement to the payment was tied directly to the number of hours worked in the preceding year and hence was made in respect of services already performed by the claimant. While agreeing that the payment was tied to past performance, the Umpire noted that there was no entitlement to it when the services were performed. Rather, the payment "arises from" the agreement as it is the agreement that has created the entitlement. Commission's appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Decision 36387A
Full Text of Decision 36387A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
While the application was filed on 08-02-95 and the licence was surrendered a few days prior, a payment on account of real estate was issued to the claimant on 30-03-95. Umpire stated that the law is quite settled, claimant's earnings from real estate should be allocated to the week in which the transaction that gave rise to the earnings occured only when the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was completed, i.e., when the transaction was closed and property changed hands.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
commissions |
|
|
Decision 33339
Full Text of Decision 33339
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
In cases of real estate sales, transaction not completed until the closing, when the purchaser pays for the property earlier agreed upon, even when the commission earnings are payable when no services are performed by the sales agent in the week in which payment is made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
commissions |
|
|
Decision 30561
Full Text of Decision 30561
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Claimant's earnings from sale of real estate to be allocated to the weeks in which the transaction that gave rise to the earnings occurred i.e. only when the agreement of purchase and sale was completed, that is the transaction was closed and the property changed hands.
Decision A-1105.90
Full Text of Decision A-1105.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Bonus of $800 paid upon ratification of agreement. Clearly "earnings from employment". Ss. 58(3) and (18)(a) are cast in retrospective terms. Not applicable here. Payable whether or not she returned after maternity leave. Whether it arose from transaction is a finding of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
allocation |
|
Decision 18360
Full Text of Decision 18360
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1105.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
allocation |
|
Decision 18836
Full Text of Decision 18836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
As per agreement concluded on 23-10-87 all eligible employees on layoff are required to apply for the signing bonus. Claimant did not know about it until he returned to work in 12-87. The transaction in reg. 58(18)(b) did not occur until claimant applied for the bonus in 12-87.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Decision 17902
Full Text of Decision 17902
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Claimant became entitled to $200 as a signing bonus upon the execution of a collective agreement. It was income arising out of his employment even if payment occurred during a layoff period. To be allocated to week of transaction, i.e. the week the agreement was signed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
contract and labour agreement |
|
Decision 12503
Full Text of Decision 12503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
The word "transaction" in reg. 58(18)(b) includes all the acts necessary to make one entitled to payment. Signing bonus for agreement ratified on 13-10 conditional on claimant returning to work and this occurred 31-10. Transaction completed 31-10.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Decision A-0432.78
Full Text of Decision A-0432.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
The employer continued to issue to claimant his regular cheques during the illness and, in turn, claimant would endorse over his UI cheque to employer. This procedure can be said to be a "transaction" within the meaning of reg. 173(18)(b), now 58(18)(b).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
earnings |
|
|
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
from employer |
|
Decision A-0113.98
Full Text of Decision A-0113.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Claimant, a part-time teacher with a contract extending from 24-08-93 to 29-06-94, received amounts for sick leave and salary adjustment at the end of his contract. The amounts were allocated pursuant to s. 58(3) and s. 58(9) of the Regulations. Decision overturned by the FCA, which found that the earnings covered not only work days but also paid holidays and vacation days occurring in the period of employment including, in particular, the Christmas and Easter vactions. Section 58(4) applies.
Decision 40009
Full Text of Decision 40009
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0113.98
Decision 32346
Full Text of Decision 32346
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Claimant paid normal wages from employer while attending an apprenticeship course. U.I. cheques signed over to the employer. The resulting O/P should be from the allocation of the difference between the benefit warrant amounts and the total weekly amounts paid by the employer.
Decision 30132
Full Text of Decision 30132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Claimant started to work 7-1-1991. Contract signed on 8-1-91 and period covered from 16-12-1990 to 15-5-1991. Retroactive allocation of monies as per Reg.58(4). If it were not for the contract of employment, s.58(3) might well be applicable.
Decision 21782
Full Text of Decision 21782
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1414.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
in lieu of wage increase |
|
Decision A-1414.92
Full Text of Decision A-1414.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Lump sum paid in lieu of wage increase 1-91. Laid off 8-2-91. This is not monies paid without the performance of services under ss. 58(4). Once laid off, there is no continuing contract. His contract is not of a salaried nature. Not paid during time when services are not rendered. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
in lieu of wage increase |
|
Decision 22479
Full Text of Decision 22479
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Part-time teacher at York University in Toronto. Contract covered period between 1-9-87 and 30-4-88. Paid once each month. The Board found she was not employed from 4-12-87 to 4-1-88. Error in law. Under ss. 58(4), even when no services are performed, salary is allocated to period for which paid.
Decision 18566
Full Text of Decision 18566
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0769.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
retroactive contract |
|
Decision A-0769.90
Full Text of Decision A-0769.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
15-week contract at Laval University (Quebec City) retroactive to 31-8 but signed on 16-9. No services performed in September and October. First pay cheque on 28-10 was for 9 weeks. Subsequently paid every 2nd week. Although retroactivity is pure fiction, SEPINWALL applies.
It is now established (see FRENETTE) that monies payable pursuant to a contract of service that includes periods during which no services are performed must be allocated to the period for which payable rather than the days on which they were actually performed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
retroactive contract |
|
Decision 18718
Full Text of Decision 18718
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0951.90
Decision A-0951.90
Full Text of Decision A-0951.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Teacher's sessional contracts. Salary allocated by Board only to weeks actually worked. Salary to be allocated to entire contract periods. Where monies are paid under a contract, it is the period for which they are payable that is determinative, not the actual days of work.
Teacher's sessional contracts. Monies allocated by Board only to actual weeks worked. A question of fact according to Umpire. The question at issue is not one of fact. Facts not contested. The question is strictly one of interpretion of the Act.
Decision 14461A
Full Text of Decision 14461A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0990.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision A-0990.90
Full Text of Decision A-0990.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Sessional instructor at University of Calgary. Contract from 1-9 to 31-12. Actually worked 18-9 to 5-12. Retroactivity in contract was mere fiction. Unemployed until 18-9 and as of 6-12. Attempt to distinguish from prior case, dismissed by Umpire. Judgment upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 20289
Full Text of Decision 20289
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Half-time teacher in N.S. The Board's decision is in conflict with the DICK decision. This decision makes it clear that the allocation of earnings cannot cover a period other than a teaching period. This is consonant with the provisions of reg. 58(3).
Decision 20249
Full Text of Decision 20249
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
The question is whether there is any evidence that claimant was paid salary for a period prior to the date he commenced work. MORGAN quoted. The Board erred when they applied ss. 58(4). Claimant performed no services until 13-1 and he received no salary for the prior period.
Decision A-0691.90
Full Text of Decision A-0691.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Contrary to the argument raised, SEPINWALL did not establish any special rule dealing with the allocation of monies when employment contracts cover a specific period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| teaching |
earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
others |
Decision 18458
Full Text of Decision 18458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0691.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| teaching |
earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
others |
Decision 19410
Full Text of Decision 19410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Lecturer; her contract from 5-5 to 21-6-85 provided for a total of 45 hours teaching; course given over three 3-day periods. Appears clear to me that Reg. 58(3) applies, not 58(4). Based, amongst others, on MORGAN (A-1200-87).
Decision 19262
Full Text of Decision 19262
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Pilot who commenced work 3-5 and was paid from 1-5. Reg. 58(4) would apply if the contract is one in which there was a "contract of employment without the performance of services". If it is one in which payment commenced on the performance of services, reg. 58(3) would apply.
Decision 18829
Full Text of Decision 18829
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Teacher paid by the lesson. Only Reg. 58(3) applies, not 58(4): salary to be distributed equally over 39 of the 42 weeks of the contract. The argument that the salary should be distributed according to the number of hours taught each week was rejected.
Decision 17560
Full Text of Decision 17560
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Hired by University to work 27 weeks at 10 hours per week between 1-9 and 30-4. He was paid over that 243-day period commencing 1-9 and and ending 30-4. It was a perversion of reality to assign to him earnings from 1-9 when he did not begin until 14-9. Reg. 58(4) not applicable.
Decision 17525
Full Text of Decision 17525
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Under contract with University from 1-9 to 30-4 but actually worked as expected from 15-9 to 15-5. Earnings wrongfully allocated from 1-9. Reg. 58(4) does not apply. The fact is that services were performed for the 2-week period from 1-5 to 15-5, not from 1-9 to 15-9.
Decision 17163
Full Text of Decision 17163
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
School bus drivers who, under a union-management agreement, received their full wages during the week of the winter brake and nothing for the last week of the following June even if they worked. Wage to be distributed in accordance with 58(3) over the week in June.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
winter holidays |
|
Decision 15449A
Full Text of Decision 15449A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Contract covering the period from 3-12-85 to 11-4-86, excluding the period from 22 to 29-12-85. The sum of $408 distributed from 22 to 29-12-85, in accordance with Regulation 58(3). Not a period of teaching within the meaning of 58(3). Too late for CEIC to rely on 58(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
winter holidays |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision A-1200.87
Full Text of Decision A-1200.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Part-time sessional instructor at University of Calgary. Contract runs from 1-9 to 31-12 but claimant actually worked 17-9 to 5-12. Retroactivity in contract was a mere fiction. Unemployed until 17-9 and as of 6-12 as per Umpire. Pure questions of fact as per Court. No error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 14461
Full Text of Decision 14461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1200.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 15653
Full Text of Decision 15653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Sessional lecturer under a 4-month contract whose services actually required some 8 weeks as confirmed by University. Reg. 58(4) quoted. Earnings to be allocated over the entire 18 weeks of the contract.
Decision 14923
Full Text of Decision 14923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Bound by a contract on three different occasions: research leading to a doctorate. The Board concluded that this was employment. Even if the amounts are only received later, according to 58(3) they must be spread over the period when the services are provided.
Decision 14727
Full Text of Decision 14727
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Hired by a university on a 15-week contract with a total of 120 hours. Claims to have completed all the work within one week. Given Reg. 58(4), CEIC was justified in spreading the remuneration over the entire period of the contract.
Decision 12601
Full Text of Decision 12601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
University teacher under contract until 30-4 who did not teach during the last 3 weeks having finished the course. Salary to be allocated to the period for which payable until 30-4 under reg. 58(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision A-0124.86
Full Text of Decision A-0124.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Quebec government employee. Ceased work 18-2-85. Accumulated sick leave days (210) to be used up prior to retirement on 18-2-85. Pension leave and accumulated leave days were not earnings under para. 57(3)(f) at that time.
Decision 11760
Full Text of Decision 11760
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0124.86
Decision 11841
Full Text of Decision 11841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Hired by university to teach 1 course of 3 hours on 1 day per week, or nine 3-hour sessions over 17 weeks. Claimant wants monies to be allocated to the 9-week period actually attended and taught, rather than the 17 weeks over which hired. CUB 9822 referred to.
Decision 11754
Full Text of Decision 11754
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Quebec teacher under contract from 1-9-83 to 31-12-83. Worked from 29-8-83 to 23-12-83. The amount of $517 constituted salary without the performance of services between 23-12 and 31-12. Reg. 58(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
winter holidays |
|
Decision A-1195.84
Full Text of Decision A-1195.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Salary or severance pay? Employed with Labatt; chose to receive one year salary over 24 months rather than termination. Amount related to salary paid at same intervals while enjoying most benefits and accruing pension. All this presumes a continuing relationship. Reg. 58(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Decision 10875
Full Text of Decision 10875
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
MP defeated, assistant paid 60 days following election. Same as actual salary. Severance pay generally for recognition of service, loss of future benefits etc. Here deductions made, no reference to ability of employee or length of service, 2 differentiating factors.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
qualifying conditions |
interruption of earnings |
|
