Decision A.100.19
Full Text of Decision A.100.19
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
This is an application for the judicial review of an SST-AD decision dismissing the appeal of GD decision on allocation of settlement earnings. Ms. Court was paid regular EI benefits after her employer terminated her employment and subsequently stopped her regular benefits in favour of maternity/parental benefits. Later, the claimant commenced legal proceedings for wrongful dismissal against her former employer and settled her claim receiving $33,828.83 in damages and interest. The Commission retroactively allocated the settlement amount to when she lost her employment, applied it against her Employment Insurance claim, thus resulting in the overpayment of $11,352. The General Division interpreted s. 45 of the EIA to mean that the claimant was responsible for an overpayment because her former employer paid the Claimant damages relating to her wrongful dismissal claim relating to the same period when she received Employment Insurance benefits. The General Division also determined that the claimant had to repay an amount that the Commission would not have paid if the employer had paid her earnings during this same timeframe. The SST-AD found that the General Division did not err in its interpretation of section 45 of the Employment Insurance Act. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Decision A-0514.05
Full Text of Decision A-0514.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
The $15,000 sum the claimant received under a settlement with her employer could not be allocated under the terms of subsection 36(11) of the Regulations, since the settlement did not address the fact that the sum had been allocated for specific weeks and was the result of required disciplinary action. The Court confirmed that the sum had to be allocated as separation pay in accordance with subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.
Decision 26606
Full Text of Decision 26606
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
The Board stated that the allocation was made under ss. 58(10). This is incorrect. Ss. 58(10) is applicable where there has been a finding or admission of discipline. Regardless of this error, the allocation made by the Commission was proper under ss. 58(9) and (9.1).
Decision 26004
Full Text of Decision 26004
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
The Board held that the award related to reinstatement following a one-year suspension. The Board incorrectly interpreted the award and the precise wording in ss. 58(9) that "regardless of the nature of the earnings or the period in respect of which they are purported to be paid or payable".
Decision 20831
Full Text of Decision 20831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
Reg. 58(10) only applies when there has been "a finding or admission of discipline". Thus, the allocation of earnings in claimant's case occurred pursuant to reg. 58(9) not 58(10). Settlement payments are income received by a claimant which arose out ofhis employment.
Decision 19766
Full Text of Decision 19766
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
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 |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 16344A
Full Text of Decision 16344A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
Settlement negotiated between claimant's lawyer and employer. It was agreed by the parties that the sum, the equivalent of 9 months' salary, was paid only in respect to remuneration for the week of 26-1-87. Properly allocated to successive weeks.
Decision 19238
Full Text of Decision 19238
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
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 |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 17677
Full Text of Decision 17677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
Teacher who ceased work due to illness 5-86. Legal action taken for period starting 1-87. Not required in reg. 58(5) that the specific weeks must be contained in final release or even that it be in writing at all. As the release is silent, open to the Board to look elsewhere.
Decision 17030
Full Text of Decision 17030
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
The Memorandum of Settlement provides that the money paid ($26,321) is to be allocated to the week in which paid. As the agreement was dated 6-87, the money was properly allocated under reg. 58(10) to the weeks from 6-87 to 2-88.
Decision 17019
Full Text of Decision 17019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
Claimant grieved due to the fact that when a certain employee was away that employee was replaced by a regular employee instead of claimant. The sum of $500 awarded in 9-86 was allocated starting in 10-85 with week in which claimant should have been called to work.
Decision 15507
Full Text of Decision 15507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
The Employment Standards Act of Ontario has no application to this matter. It provides for a time within which a severance payment must be made. It does not purport to allocate the payment to a particular time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Decision 15503
Full Text of Decision 15503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
To be allocated under 58(10) and not 58(9). The particular date on which payment falls due is not the period for which earnings are payable. I do not accept that provincial legislation can determine how earnings are to be allocated under the UI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Decision 14705
Full Text of Decision 14705
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
Claimant demoted 27-10-84 and dismissed 27-1-85. Out of court settlement to be allocated at the rate of $455 a week commencing 27-10-84 minus actual salary received until dismissal. [p. 9]
Decision 13933
Full Text of Decision 13933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
Sued not for libel or slander but for damages for wrongful dismissal. Out-of-court settlement. The law is clear that this is earnings. No specific period covered. Monies allocated from dismissal as per reg. 58(5)(b). Legal costs to be deducted before.
Decision A-0586.79
Full Text of Decision A-0586.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Summary:
After school bus driver dismissed from $80 per week job, worked at $186 per week job. Damages awarded to be allocated from time of dismissal from 1st job at rate of $80 per week, not $186. Reg. 173(20) since amended. Application for review dismissed in FC.
Decision A-0419.95
Full Text of Decision A-0419.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation to specific weeks |
|
Summary:
Amounts were paid after 2 grievances were settled. The FCA upheld decisions by CEIC, Appeal Board and appeal judge, to the effect that compensation was paid to the beneficiary for those periods during which she would have been able to work had she not been suspended.
Decision 27781
Full Text of Decision 27781
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation to specific weeks |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0419.95
Decision 28460
Full Text of Decision 28460
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation to specific weeks |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for insubordination. Reinstated on the basis of being awarded 50% of lost wages. Held that an interruption of earnings did not occur. The argument that the monies should be allocated to half of the period rather than at 50% over the whole period was dismissed.
Decision 19298
Full Text of Decision 19298
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation to specific weeks |
|
Summary:
Employees dismissed 12-85; file grievance; after lengthy period of time, and to get around Unemployment Insurance Act, parties agree that compensation will be paid for 1987 and have it approved by arbitral award. Allocation to be done as of 12-85.
Decision A-0315.89
Full Text of Decision A-0315.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation to specific weeks |
|
Summary:
The words "paid within 3 weeks of termination" do not amount to an allocation "to a specific period" for the purpose of s. 58. It is the period within which payment must be made, not for which it is made, not over which monies are to be distributed.
Decision 16671
Full Text of Decision 16671
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation to specific weeks |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0315.89
Decision 69714
Full Text of Decision 69714
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees based its decision on the claimant's submission that he was compensated for relinquishing his right to reinstatement. That decision was not based on the evidence before the Board, because there was no evidence that the claimant allegedly had a right to reinstatement that he relinquished.
Decision A-0140.03
Full Text of Decision A-0140.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Court stated that a determination of what constitutes earnings is a mixed question of fact and law and the Umpire was required to apply the reasonableness simplicter test. The Court determined that, since there was some evidence before the BOR on which it based its decision, it was not unreasonable for them to conclude that the settlement received was damages for the relinquishment of the right of reinstatement. Therefore, the Umpire erred in reviewing the Board's decision.
Decision 56407
Full Text of Decision 56407
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that an award of money to the claimant by an Arbitration Board, after dismissal, constituted earnings and was allocated. The Umpire found that the claimant had not established that her settlement was for relinquishing her right to reinstatement and that the BOR erred in allowing the claimant's appeal. Refer to the summary of the FCA indexed under A-0140.03
Decision A-0693.99
Full Text of Decision A-0693.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
NOTE: See summary of facts indexed under CUB 46132. FCA stated that the ruling of the Director of Labour Standards was not directed only at the reinstatement of the claimant. It also ordered the employer to pay the claimant a sum of $28,470 for wages lost. There is simply no evidence in the record that enabled the BOR and eventually the Umpire to be satisfied that the settlement monies related only to a future right of reinstatement. Ordered by the FCA that the matter be referred back to a BOR for redetermination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 46132
Full Text of Decision 46132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Claimant filed a wrongful dismissal complaint and obtained from Novia Scotia Department of Labour an order of reinstatement. The order was appealed by the employer but the day before the hearing a settlement was negotiated where the claimant gave up his right to be reinstated in return for a lump sum of $35,000. The Commission considered the settlement to be earnings and to be allocated. Both the BOR and the Umpire accepted the claimant's point of view and ruled that the monies paid were not payable by reason of a lay-off or separation but rather in respect to an order for reinstatement.**NOTA: The Commission agreed that the Umpire misinterpreted the notion of "right of reinstatement" and requested a judicial review from the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 42078
Full Text of Decision 42078
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Umpire decided that the claimant had met the burden of proof stated in the Walford decision to the effect that the damages paid by the employer did not constitute income as defined in the Act. In the case at hand, the claimant showed that the damages paid by his employer were not income since the amount received was broken down as damages for anxiety, moral suffering, loss of reputation, legal costs, job searches, travel costs and moving costs. The Commission did not provide anything to counter the established evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision A-0489.96
Full Text of Decision A-0489.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Allocation of $135,000 in compensation received following the settlement of a grievance that the claimant had filed against her employer for having unfairly refused her a new job. Umpire reversed this decision in deciding that these damages were awarded for an injustice and not by an employer for an employee. FCA found that the Umpire was wrong to decide as he did since the arbitral award and settlement of the dispute were based on the collective agreement and her status as an employee. Therefore, this amount represented compensation, which constituted earnings within the meaning of Reg. 57 and 58.
Decision 21081
Full Text of Decision 21081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Her argument that the monies were paid as compensation for mental stress and damage to her reputation must, in order to succeed, be supported by evidence of a more substantial nature than the allegations contained within her statement of claim by which she commenced her action.
Decision 17395A
Full Text of Decision 17395A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0034.91
Decision A-0034.91
Full Text of Decision A-0034.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The settlement monies paid to claimant were paid wholly as compensation for his loss of salary and other pecuniary benefits associated with employment. His claim for reinstatement does not in any way alter that fact. The monies received remain income arising out of employment.
The exception in WALFORD only applies if the loss is totally unrelated to advantages arising from employment. For example, settlements paid to address injury to one's health or reputation would not be earnings. All advantages attached to employment are of same nature as the loss.
As per Umpire, part was for wrongful dismissal and part for settlement of claim for reinstatement. The latter may relate to lost salary but only for salary that may arise in the future and includes other factors (benefit programs), and it is not earnings. This was an error.
Decision 20072
Full Text of Decision 20072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Action brought for dismissal without prior notice. The claim included general damages for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, mental distress, loss of holidays, punitive damages. Nothing in the settlement indicates compensation for mental stress, injuries or other losses.
Decision 19539
Full Text of Decision 19539
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
True that the terms of the release do not specifically tie the settlement to lost wages but, notwithstanding the generality of the release, it is clear that the main focus of it is to relieve the employer from any further liability arising out of the employment relationship.
Decision 15122A
Full Text of Decision 15122A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
It is important to note that MAYOR is such as to raise a presumption that a settlement never contains a compensation for injury to reputation unless such can be clearly shown, for example, in the text of the settlement or judgment.
Decision 16452
Full Text of Decision 16452
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Board held that settlement was for damages for breach of contract, physical and psychological injury including emotional distress and punitive damages and those monies were not earnings. Amounts paid in the form of damages not stemming from loss of salary are not earnings.
Decision A-0667.88
Full Text of Decision A-0667.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Claimant sued employer for wrongful dismissal. The suit also asserts that he has suffered injury to his reputation and emotional upset but nothing would permit a trier of fact to determine what, if any, part was so paid. Burden of proof on claimant as per WALFORD.
Decision 15122
Full Text of Decision 15122
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0667.88
Decision 16158
Full Text of Decision 16158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Any deduction from the award has to be specifically referred to in the judgment as being, for example, for pain and suffering. Neither a Board nor an Umpire can use discretion to break down an amount into component elements. "Release from any claim" is not enough for a breakdown.
Decision 14045
Full Text of Decision 14045
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0770.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0770.87
Full Text of Decision A-0770.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
When claimant threatened to ask for a rehearing before the Labour Board on the ground that he had not been properly reinstated as ordered, he was paid $4000 to abandon all claims. There was evidence for the Board of Referees to legally hold that this was earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 15262
Full Text of Decision 15262
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
See WALFORD. The burden of proof is on claimant to show clearly that the settlement was in whole or part for something other than loss of wages. Allegations in a statement of claim is not proof. Reasonable inference must arise from established facts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
Decision 15217
Full Text of Decision 15217
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
While provincial legislation provides for 8 weeks wages in lieu of notice for an employee with 10 years' service, that is no measure for one with 30 years. Settlement would be based on an estimate of what a court might award, not on basis of minimum provincial legislation.
The jurisprudence is clear that awards are presumed to be compensation for lost wages. If claimant can prove they include compensation for other types of damage, e.g. defamation or loss of reputation, that amount is not earnings. The burden of proof lies upon the claimant.
Decision 15179
Full Text of Decision 15179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Amount of $10000 paid as damages for mental distress and loss of reputation, as per the pertinent provision of the settlement. No money payable on account of wages.
Decision 14091
Full Text of Decision 14091
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0866.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
gross amount |
|
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Decision A-0866.87
Full Text of Decision A-0866.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Earnings arose out of claimant's action for declaratory relief and settlement under Canadian Human Rights Act and public service employment legislation following dismissal as probationary employee of the federal government.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
gross amount |
|
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Decision 14869
Full Text of Decision 14869
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Forced to retire at 60. Claimant filed complaint on discrimination and was paid $40,000 to withdraw his complaint. Not reinstated in his job. There is no doubt that these monies fall within 57(2)(a) and 58(5).
Decision A-0249.87
Full Text of Decision A-0249.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
We are in full agreement with Umpire. As per Umpire, following the amendment, settlement payments made as the result of the settlement of a wrongful dismissal action, commenced in the courts in the usual way, or negotiated outside a specific court action, will be earnings.
The record does not show that there was evidence on which the Board could have found that the sum received by claimant in settlement of his grievance was compensation for something other than loss of wages.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 14503
Full Text of Decision 14503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Claimant says the money was paid to terminate a complaint and not as wages. I cannot accept this. Only the fact of actual employment gave right to seek remedy from Employment Standards Act. Claimant sought 2 forms of relief: maternity leave and severance pay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Decision 12394A
Full Text of Decision 12394A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
It was argued that the monies were not lost wages or notice but a settlement for claimant's resignation and severance of employment. Clearly, even if this money was paid in return for claimant's resignation, it must be income arising out of his employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
retirement allowances |
|
|
Decision 13830
Full Text of Decision 13830
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear that amounts paid as settlement as wages or wages in lieu of notice are earnings but not compensation for some damage or injury, other than failure to give notice, such as damage to reputation or as mental stress. [p. 3-4]
I have no doubt that he suffered the damage to reputation and mental stress but what must be proved is that the amount paid was a compensation for that damage, whereas the settlement refers to 6 months' salary. [p. 4]
Decision A-0527.85
Full Text of Decision A-0527.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The effect of a legal presumption cannot be destroyed by referring to a conjecture. Nothing in the evidence suggests that the monies paid were intended to cover any damage other than the loss of salary or pecuniary benefits associated with the employment lost.
The rule that clearly emerges from s. 57 and 58 is where there are no special circumstances, any amount paid by an employer to a laid-off or dimissed employee is paid as compensation for loss of income. See WALFORD.
In view of the presumption created by the rule in s. 57 and 58, the full amount paid in settlement of unlawful dismissal is to be regarded as income arising out of employment subject to allocation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
legal presumption |
|
Decision A-0392.85
Full Text of Decision A-0392.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Damages paid for wrongful dismissal, reinstatement and second dismissal. It is therefore necessary to apportion the monies to each of the reasons which gave rise to them even though the settlement is silent on the applicability of said amounts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of hearing |
|
|
Decision A-0103.84
Full Text of Decision A-0103.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Board found as a fact that the net settlement was not for loss of earnings but was for loss of reputation. The Umpire erred in reversing its decision and in effect rejecting its finding of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-1223.83
Full Text of Decision A-1223.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Out-of-court settlement. The earnings fell within reg. 173(20); namely they were paid or payable pursuant to "otherwise" than a court judgment.
The Board held that no amount is to be attributed for injury to reputation and no evidence of expenses for retraining or relocation. The Umpire held the total settlement was earnings. We are of the view that the reasons for judgment are unassailable in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0533.84
Full Text of Decision A-0533.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Grievances filed: wrongful dismissal and proceedings for formation of bargaining unit. Employer objected vigorously to both. The Board found the out-of-court settlement was to relieve an impossible situation, not for wrongful dismissal. Not to be disturbed under s.95.
Decision A-1607.83
Full Text of Decision A-1607.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
The decision of the Board was based in part upon a misinterpretation of the settlement agreement in which payment is described as damages. This would constitute an error in law and permit an Umpire to vary the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0452.81
Full Text of Decision A-0452.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Insufficient information to conclude that out of court settlement reached because of injury to reputation. Cannot reasonably conclude from the record that the sum received was not earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0771.80
Full Text of Decision A-0771.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Case referred back to Umpire to determine what portion of the settlement can be characterized as compensation for loss of income on the basis that under s.54(1) no UI is paid unless claimant proves that no circumstances exist to disentitle him.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
Decision A-0170.80
Full Text of Decision A-0170.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
A portion of the settlement represents damages for breach of contrat, another represents compensation for the loss of the right to future earnings. The latter is earnings as per WALFORD. No evidence to quantify the 2 portions. Proof to be made by claimant under ss.54(1).
The by-law of the Town affords the most cogent evidence presently on the record of the agreement between the Town and claimant as to the nature of the settlement between the parties in respect of the termination of claimant's employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision A-0604.79
Full Text of Decision A-0604.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the $4900 had been paid not as salay but because the insured, a full-time teacher, had been reinstated only as a regular supply teacher; it therefore was not equivalent to earnings. Judgment reversed by the FC.
Decision A-0367.79
Full Text of Decision A-0367.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
As per the Umpire, claimant sought damages because he was deprived of gainful employment, annual salary and fringe benefits and accepted settlement before trial [p.10-11]. The Umpire was correct in applying reg. 58(5) and in applying WALFORD.
Decision A-0371.78
Full Text of Decision A-0371.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
It may be that an employee who is unlawfully dismissed will receive damages for injury to his reputation. The board's finding of fact that this was the case was not based on any error of law.
Decision A-0263.78
Full Text of Decision A-0263.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Damages paid to a dismissed employee are income arising out of employment. Unless claimant proves under 54(1) that damages were made for some other reason, the Commission may assume that the entire amount represents lost income.
If claimant had established facts from which it could have been reasonably inferred that he had been compensated for something other than loss of wages, the Commission would have had to evaluate, as fairly as it could, the part attributed to the loss ofwages.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
| earnings |
income |
amount unknown |
|
Decision 26203
Full Text of Decision 26203
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
future earnings |
|
Summary:
The Board, having determined the true nature of the monies received, failed to consider whether this was an advantage arising from employment. The contract was terminated. An agreement was reached to pay money for "future earnings". The amount is nevertheless an advantage arising from employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
| earnings |
awards |
time for payment |
|
Decision 24888
Full Text of Decision 24888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Summary:
Claimant is asking that additional expenses be deducted from the settlement. This was under 4 headings, one of which is for personal expenses from health care premiums and medical expenses. Argument dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
Decision A-0866.87
Full Text of Decision A-0866.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Summary:
The Umpire excluded source deductions for income tax and like items from the earnings awarded following action for wrongful dismissal. That was a clear error; see MCCOMBE.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
gross amount |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 14091
Full Text of Decision 14091
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0866.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
gross amount |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 15956
Full Text of Decision 15956
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
hiring contract cancelled |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1205.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
Decision A-1205.88
Full Text of Decision A-1205.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
hiring contract cancelled |
|
Summary:
Claimant negotiated contract with a prospective employer who later withdrew the offer. Claimant successfully sued for damages. Money awarded in lieu of salary. Definition of employment not dependent on performance of services under ss. 57(1). It suffices that a contract exists.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
Decision 12781
Full Text of Decision 12781
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
hiring contract cancelled |
|
Summary:
Hiring contract cancelled and claimant never started work. There was an employment relationship. Definition of earnings very broad. Payment stated to represent 3 months' salary and draw. Comparable to wages in lieu of notice. Not a bonus but paid in lieu of wages.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
Decision 24888
Full Text of Decision 24888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
Summary:
Claimant is asking that additional expenses be deducted from the settlement. This was under 4 headings, one of which is for interest on money borrowed and another for accumulated interests on the final settlement based on 14 months. Argument dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Decision 17572
Full Text of Decision 17572
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
Summary:
Settlement awards will be severed into components of lost income and other heads of damages (legal fees, interest) which are not allocatable. As such, the Board has properly severed these amounts, and properly allocated the remainder.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
income |
not insurable |
|
Decision 15262
Full Text of Decision 15262
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
Summary:
There are certain items which can properly be deducted from the settlement: legal expenses and also included interest on the settlement calculated for one year at 8%.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision A-0480.83
Full Text of Decision A-0480.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in holding that no portion of the award should be treated as interest following dismissal and should be deducted from the award.
Decision 33178
Full Text of Decision 33178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Summary:
The fact that an award describes monies as compensation for anticipated job search and relocation expenses does not discharge burden of proof that it is not earnings under sections 57 and 58 of Regulations. The onus rests with a claimant to prove that the sum was used for such expenses.
Decision 24888
Full Text of Decision 24888
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Summary:
Claimant is asking that additional expenses be deducted from the settlement. This was under 4 headings, one of which is for travelling between his residence and his solicitor's office. Argument dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
| earnings |
awards |
gross income |
|
Decision 17849
Full Text of Decision 17849
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Summary:
Unless special circumstances can be shown by claimant, all moneys paid in settlement of a claim are earnings. Monies directly awarded for job search and relocating may be deducted but only such reasonable expenditures as actually incurred.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Decision 15507
Full Text of Decision 15507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Summary:
Out-of-court settlement including $3000 as a relocation allowance considered earnings by the Board. Onus on claimant to show special circumstances exist that monies were not to replace lost income. Apart from his statement that he did spend the money tosecure work, no evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Decision 15503
Full Text of Decision 15503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Summary:
Out-of-court settlement broken down into 4 items, 1 of which is $1500 for job search expenses. Claimant has not proven that she had incurred any amount in seeking new employment. The Board did not err in determining monies as earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
Decision 47766
Full Text of Decision 47766
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
Claimant submitted that he should be entitled to deduct the amount he has paid as union dues from the arbitration award. He argued that without payment of union dues, he would not have been entitled to representation at the arbitration hearing by a union lawyer. Request denied by BOR and upheld by Umpire. Claimant paid his dues because he was required to do so as a member of his union. Union dues not paid for the direct purpose of earning income.
Decision 34664
Full Text of Decision 34664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
Umpire found that only portion of the legal fees paid to recover income replacement should be deducted and not the total sum of legal fees paid. The burden would be on the claimant to show what portion of the legal fees was paid to recover sums of a non-income nature.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Decision 26150
Full Text of Decision 26150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
Held that, based on the Board's finding of fact, part of the settlement was paid for defamation of character. Thererefore, only a portion of the monies is to be ignored. Earnings assessed at 70% (20 weeks) by Umpire. Legal fees to be deducted in the same proportion of 70%.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 17849A
Full Text of Decision 17849A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
Although reasonable legal costs are permitted to be deducted from a wrongful dismissal settlement, since they do not constitute earnings, it is only such costs as are proven by the claimant as making up part of the award; not those incurred subsequently.
Decision 17849
Full Text of Decision 17849
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
The settlement calls for $9500 paid due to expenses incurred in seeking work and relocating. There being no proof of those expenditures, these monies are earnings. The same would be true for example with legal costs. There would be no basis for deducting more than actual cost.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Decision 15536A
Full Text of Decision 15536A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
Claimant says that $866 should be deducted from the settlement, which represents legal costs incurred by her in her dealings with the Commission and the Board. Nothing in the statute permits me to award the legal costs of the appeal process to claimant.
Decision 14675
Full Text of Decision 14675
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
It is only the net amount actually received after payment of legal costs which can constitute a payment under reg. 58. It would be the same if the employer went bankrupt and became unable to pay the judgment. In any practical sense, there would be no "payment". [p._6-7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Decision 14503
Full Text of Decision 14503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
There is no provision in the UI legislation regarding legal expenses incurred in presenting an appeal to the Board of Referees, but certainly expenses incurred in obtaining the settlement can be exempted from earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 09842
Full Text of Decision 09842
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
Claimant says legal costs are continuing and total amount not yet known, by reason of former employer having filed a complaint against her professional standing. Such costs cannot be deducted from the settlement as they do not relate to her wrongful dismissal.
Decision A-0263.78
Full Text of Decision A-0263.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
It seems that part of damages were paid to defray legal costs, the amount of which claimant has always refused to divulge. Unless the Commission believes that no part was so paid, it has the duty to estimate, as fairly as it could, that part and treat only the residue as income.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
| earnings |
income |
amount unknown |
|
Decision 40237
Full Text of Decision 40237
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
Commission notified Clmt of overpayment resulting from allocation of EWPP payment. Both Clmt & BOR invoked the limitation periods for reconsideration prescribed in 43(1) & (2) of the UI Act wheras the Commission invoked the liability to return overpayment prescribed in Section 37. Umpire ruled that the limitation period mentioned in section 43 does not apply to repayments required from employees under section 37 of the UI Act.
Decision 31210
Full Text of Decision 31210
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
Following an out of court settlement, beneficiary notified that his former employer was responsible for paying the amount to the Commission. Ruled that s. 35 of the Act should be read in conjunction with s. 37. Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission may take legal action against the beneficiary or the employer in order to recover an overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
employer's liability |
|
Decision 19676A
Full Text of Decision 19676A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1023.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
specific clause |
|
Decision A-1023.91
Full Text of Decision A-1023.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
We are all agreed that, where the particular event contemplated by ss. 38(2) is found to occur, whether or not liability to the Commission is explicitly regulated by the settlement, that subsection takes precedence over the general imposition of joint liability provided by s. 35 and 37.
The Commission argued that s. 37 must be looked to before s. 38, and that if the two criteria therein are met, an employer becomes liable to pay remuneration to an employee and does actually so pay, the Commission then has the right to proceed against either employer or employee. Argument dismissed.
The Board found that the amount of UI paid to claimant was taken into account by the employer to reduce the amount which it would otherwise be liable to pay by reason of wrongful dismissal. Therefore, there is no obligation against claimant under s. 37. Ss. 38(2) applies said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
specific clause |
|
Decision 19770
Full Text of Decision 19770
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
The Federal Court indicated in WHEATON that s.38 is independent of s.43 and 86 and that the time limitation imposed by s.43 does not apply to such repayments. Applying this here, I find that s.43 does not apply to overpayments under s.37.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision T-0853.87
Full Text of Decision T-0853.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
Court action taken for wrongful dimissal. In the meantime, claimant collects $3 657 in UI. The employer then agrees to reinstate him and to pay him the difference between his salary and UI benefits (i.e. $2 586). Garnishee order: employer requested to pay $3 657 under s. 37 and 38.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
employer's liability |
|
Decision T-2420.83
Full Text of Decision T-2420.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
It appears that in calculating the lump sum indemnities, allowance was made for the UI benefits received by the employees. It can be presumed that the employer intended to comply with s. 38, by withholding the amounts corresponding to UI paid. These must now be paid.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
Decision A-1780.83
Full Text of Decision A-1780.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
liability to repay ui |
|
Summary:
Collected UI until 11-76. Damages awarded for wrongful dismissal in 1981. We cannot agree that s.86 has any application here. Matter covered by 38(1) and limitation period in s.43 has no application.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
new facts vs reconsideration |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 75796
Full Text of Decision 75796
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
The claimant sued his employer for wrongful dismissal and eventually settled his claim out of court for a total amount of $10,000.00. The claimant had also received a vacation pay and a payment in lieu of notice. The Commission determined that the moneys received constituted earnings and allocated the amounts. This resulted in an overpayment of $5,230.00. The claimant appeal the decision, the only issue under appeal was the allocation of the $10,000.00 settlement. The agreement did not provide any breakdown of the reasons for which the moneys were paid. In the absence of legal fees paid by the claimant, fees which could be subtracted before allocation, the full $10,000.00 must therefore be allocated. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision A0392.07
Full Text of Decision A0392.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
The claimant was discharged on August 9, 2005 following a mass layoff that took place at one of the Tembec plants. On September 24, 2005 the claimant signed a document entitled «Receipt, Release and Settlement», which indicated specifically that in exchange for severance pay, the latter would agree to waive his layoff rights and terminate his employment with Tembec. The Commission allocated the severance pay in accordance with Regulation 36(9) and (10) effective from the end of employment: August 7, 2005. The Umpire, in supporting the decision of the BOR, concluded that the severance pay made out to the claimant had been paid in exchange for forfeiting layoff and reinstatement rights and that it had to be allocated as provided by Regulation 36(19)(b).
The Court, unlike the BOR and the Umpires, found that the severance pay could not be merged with a payment carried out to waive a layoff right or reinstatement right while it was, in the case at hand, solely a layoff right. In federal law, reinstatement right is the right of an employee to resume work following an unjustified discharge, if the reinstatement is granted to that employee. The Umpire and the BOR incorrectly enforced the applicable legislation, namely paragraph 36(19)(b) instead of subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
| earnings |
Monies By Reason of Separation |
|
|
Decision 53702A
Full Text of Decision 53702A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
After filing a grievance for wrongful dismissal, claimant received $25,000 as a settlement. The agreement referred to the amount as a retiring allowance in recognition of her 18 years of service. Based on the wording of the agreement, the BOR determined that the amount was not earnings. Held by Umpire that the term "retiring allowance" was inappropriate and appeared to have been selected to insulate the claimant from allocation and repayment of benefits. The legal principle is firmly established that compensation for wrongful dismissal to compensate for loss of salary or wages is earnings under the EIA.
Decision A-0520.01
Full Text of Decision A-0520.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
After 18 years, claimant left her employment because of health problems. She was awarded a settlement equivalent to 24 months for wrongful dismissal. An appropriate rule of thumb to fix a period of damages for wrongful dismissal was to award one month for each year of service. Claimant claimed that the additional 6 months was for the mental duress she had been subjected. Based on these facts, the Umpire ruled that the extra 6 months should not be considered as earnings and not be allocated. The Court found that it was open for the Umpire to make that decision and summarily dismissed the Commission's request for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Decision 51759
Full Text of Decision 51759
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0520.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Decision A-0567.99
Full Text of Decision A-0567.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Part of the settlement for wrongful dismissal paid to the claimant included 1 500$ for job search expenses and 2 500$ for job training expenses. Relying on the decision in Jean Renaud, CUB 17849, the Commission considered these expenses as income to be allocated since they had not actually incurred. Umpire ruled that the principles enunciated in the Renaud case were not absolute in their terms and that they were reasonable expenses which the claimant would eventually incur. The Court agreed with Umpire that as long as there is a genuine intent to so spend the expenses, it would be too restrictive to insist that in every case there must be clear evidence that such costs have been "actually incurred".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Decision A-0693.99
Full Text of Decision A-0693.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
NOTE: See summary of facts indexed under CUB 46132. FCA stated that it cannot be said that an amount paid to an employee for giving up his right to go back to his former position has been "earned by labour" or has been "given in return for work done". If a settlement encompasses both an acceptation of lost wages and a renunciation of a right to reinstatement granted by the appropriate authority, only the former constitutes "earnings" to be allocated. Matter returned to BOR for redetermination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 46132
Full Text of Decision 46132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Claimant filed a wrongful dismissal complaint and obtained from Novia Scotia Department of Labour an order of reinstatement. The order was appealed by the employer but the day before the hearing a settlement was negotiated where the claimant gave up his right to be reinstated in return for a lump sum of $35,000. The Commission considered the settlement to be earnings and to be allocated. Both the BOR and the Umpire accepted the claimant's point of view and ruled that the monies paid were not payable by reason of a lay-off or separation but rather in respect to an order for reinstatement.**NOTA: The Commission agreed that the Umpire misinterpreted the notion of "right of reinstatement" and requested a judicial review from the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 42598A
Full Text of Decision 42598A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0567.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Decision 42078
Full Text of Decision 42078
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Umpire decided that the claimant had met the burden of proof stated in the Walford decision to the effect that the damages paid by the employer did not constitute income as defined in the Act. In the case at hand, the claimant showed that the damages paid by his employer were not income since the amount received was broken down as damages for anxiety, moral suffering, loss of reputation, legal costs, job searches, travel costs and moving costs. The Commission did not provide anything to counter the established evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Decision 33512
Full Text of Decision 33512
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Claimant received $26,245 as ex gratia payment upon termination. Termination did not result from misconduct or anything of that nature but rather from mutual incompatibility. Umpire characterized it as a "nuisance payment" and allowed the claimant's appeal. Commission appealed to the FCA.**NOTE: The Commission concluded that the Umpire erred in fact and in law when he found that the moneys paid as ex gratia were not earnings. Claimant failed to submit any evidence to support his allegation that the ex gratia payment was payable for a reason unrelated to the loss of his employment.
Decision A-0572.95
Full Text of Decision A-0572.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
The Board found as a fact that the $15,000 settlement represented claimant's equity in the firm. Claimant joined the firm on the basis of obtaining capital, instead of earning income at a rate he was capable of earning elsewhere. Open to the BOR to findas it did. Decision upheld by Umpire and FCA.
Decision 28759
Full Text of Decision 28759
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0572.95
Decision 27115
Full Text of Decision 27115
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0231.95
Decision A-0231.95
Full Text of Decision A-0231.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Based on evidence, BOR determined that a sum of $2,000 be allocated for mental distress. Umpire found that it was reasonably open to the BOR to make this finding. FCA found no reviewable error: matter of fact for BOR to determine on the evidence as to the various components of the settlement.**NOTE: The FCA endorsed the four principles set out in J. Renaud (CUB 17849). Elements other than loss of income can be included in a settlement. However, the claimant must bring forward evidence that there were various components to the settlement before the BOR can proceed to apportion any monies.
Decision 28457
Full Text of Decision 28457
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Held that the settlement was not grounded in the employment relation and did not arise out of it. It was related to the loss of a house, loss of a job prospect and slanderous and defamatory remarks made after dimissal. As a consequence, the monies were not earnings for UI purposes.
Slanderous statements made by several officers of the employer after dismissal. No attempt was made by the parties to deny this, so claimant's evidence in this connection should have been accepted and given full weight. The documents provided tend to corroborate his version, at least by implication.
Decision 28232
Full Text of Decision 28232
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Nature of payment made related to wrongful dismissal. Such a factual issue must be resolved, not by giving a party the benefit of the doubt, but by determining whether the party bearing the burden of proof (the claimant) has proved his case. The Board erred in law by not applying the correct test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 26828
Full Text of Decision 26828
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
The settlement makes no explanation as to what the monies were for. Claimant argues that the reason for this is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission would not want to have it in print that it was compensation in the form of damages for a breach on its part of the Act which it was to enforce.
Decision 26203
Full Text of Decision 26203
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
It is clear from case law that the CEIC is in no way bound by agreements made between an employee and employer. It is entitled to look at the circumstances surrounding the payment on separation and determine whether it was in fact earnings regardless of what the parties claim the payment was for.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
| earnings |
awards |
future earnings |
|
| earnings |
awards |
time for payment |
|
Decision 26150
Full Text of Decision 26150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Held that, based on the Board's finding of fact, part of the settlement was paid for defamation of character. Thererefore, only a portion of the monies is to be ignored. Earnings assessed at 70% (20 weeks) by Umpire. Legal fees to be deducted in the same proportion of 70%.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Decision 20773B
Full Text of Decision 20773B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
As per the settlement, the payment is made as a compromise to terminate controversy and not as an admission of liability. Held that this is an ordinary release for wrongful dismissal and the monies are deemed to be loss of income according to the jurisprudence. The Board erred in law.
Decision A-0582.93
Full Text of Decision A-0582.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
As per the Umpire, part of the damages were paid to relocate claimant after dismissal. The statement of claim did not contain any such reference. An amount paid by a defendant to settle an action cannot be deemed to have been paid in settlement of claims different from those asserted in the action.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 22877
Full Text of Decision 22877
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0582.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 23983
Full Text of Decision 23983
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
While the prayer for relief was split under many headings, the judgment or minutes of settlement do not set out the claim for relief under which the amount is awarded. It would be a matter of pure speculation on my part as the final court document does not purport to apportion the global amount.
Decision 23801
Full Text of Decision 23801
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
The onus is on claimant to demonstrate that the settlement was for something other than lost wages and that fact must be clearly demonstrated on the record, such as in the text of the settlement agreement itself. Here, there was no way of knowing for sure. Burden upon her not discharged.
Decision 23441
Full Text of Decision 23441
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
It is true that the statement of claim filed by claimant in the action also included claims with respect to damages other than for loss of income. However it was not demonstrated that the settlement was designed in whole or in part to compensate claimant for matters other than loss of income.
Decision 22886
Full Text of Decision 22886
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Held that a settlement stemming from an action that claimant initiated under the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act and compensating her for lost wages was earnings even if she was told by a CEIC officer prior to the settlement that Human rights settlement was not earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
legal remedy |
|
Decision 22638
Full Text of Decision 22638
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Letter submitted subsequent to Board's decision tending to show that settlement monies were paid as discrimination damages. The letter falls short of enabling a trier of fact acting judicially to determine that the settlement amount was for anything other than compensation for loss of employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 21934
Full Text of Decision 21934
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
There is no doubt that the amount was paid in the context of a wrongful dismissal claim but that does not dispose of the issue. They may be not compensation for lost wages subject to another allocation or to no allocation at all. Any resulting presumption can be rebutted.
Claimant took wrongful dismissal action. As settlement, the parties agreed that she be provided with a consulting contract for $8,900. This amount she received but her services were not used. Nothing indicates that this was a sham. Board's decision not perverse nor capricious.
Decision 21504
Full Text of Decision 21504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
According to the acknowledgement, the sum of $15,000 is paid as retirement allowance recognizing both long-term service as well as loss of employment and is invested in an RRSP. No evidence to the fact that the amount concerned anything other than loss of salary.
Decision 18313
Full Text of Decision 18313
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0639.90
Decision A-0639.90
Full Text of Decision A-0639.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Out-of-court settlement: separation allowance of $9 000 paid relieving the employer from any further and future claims. Claimant tried to distinguish his case from WALFORD by saying that his dismissal which arose from sexual harassment was warranted.
Decision 18005
Full Text of Decision 18005
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Sold his own company on condition of being hired by it for the next 3 years. The purchaser broke the contract after one year. According to the Board, the amount of $30000 was paid for breach of sales contract, not the work contract. Question of fact.
Decision 16369
Full Text of Decision 16369
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0155.89
Decision A-0155.89
Full Text of Decision A-0155.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Complete and final settlement for any claim whatsoever for lost wages, compensation or damages, according to which $15 357 of the total amount of $20 000 was severance pay. The total amount of $20 000 is earnings. Upheld in FC without comment.
Decision 17572
Full Text of Decision 17572
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
When claimant pursued a court action and later received an out-of-court settlement, it significantly altered the nature of the monies. Had she initially received severance pay it would have been exempt at that time. When she accepted a settlement, it was no longer an exception.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
interest |
|
| earnings |
income |
not insurable |
|
Decision 16371
Full Text of Decision 16371
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
$25000 discharge which takes into account all vacation pay, paid holidays, sick pay, retroactive wage adjustments and other benefits; the insured waives all current or future claims. The total amount is deemed to be earnings.
Decision 14779
Full Text of Decision 14779
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0334.88
Decision A-0334.88
Full Text of Decision A-0334.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Monies paid to claimant in lieu of severance pay following settlement of a claim under the Quebec Labour Code. These are in fact monies paid in compensation for loss of wages or salary. Upheld by FC without comment.
Decision 15800
Full Text of Decision 15800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
If claimant entered into negotiations with employer to be paid a sum in recognition of long years of service or as a fair notice period for termination, then monies come under 58(9) or (10). If it is compensation for lost wages due to wrongful dismissal, they come under 58(5).
Decision 15507
Full Text of Decision 15507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Whether a retiring allowance arising out of out-of-court settlement for 1 specific week falls under reg. 58(5) or (9). The distinction is that 58(9) contemplates voluntary payments by an employer, and 58(5) a payment which has been forced upon the employer. 58(5) applies here.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
allocation |
|
| earnings |
awards |
job search and relocation expenses |
|
Decision 14374
Full Text of Decision 14374
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Out-of-court settlement in the form of increased pension benefits. This is income arising out of employment but not a retroactive payment of or in lieu of wages under reg. 58(5). Contributions locked in and cannot be withdrawn by claimant. Reg. 58(15) applies.
Decision A-1290.83
Full Text of Decision A-1290.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
Claimant was paid 26 weeks' salary, 13 held as severance pay by the Umpire. The Board was entitled to consider whole monies as compensation for wrongful dismissal due to termination without notice, out-of-court settlement and legal fees paid. The Umpireerred under s.95.
Decision 17987
Full Text of Decision 17987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
paid to third party |
|
Summary:
Dismissal due to union activity. Complaint filed under Manitoba Labour Act. This was done by union which had a serious interest in this, not by claimant. Payment did not result from court action or action before labour arbitration board. Settlement paidto union directly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0520.01
Full Text of Decision A-0520.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
After 18 years, claimant left her employment because of health problems. She was awarded a settlement equivalent to 24 months for wrongful dismissal. An appropriate rule of thumb to fix a period of damages for wrongful dismissal was to award one month for each year of service. Claimant claimed that the additional 6 months was for the mental duress she had been subjected. Based on these facts, the Umpire ruled that the extra 6 months should not be considered as earnings and not be allocated. The Court found that it was open for the Umpire to make that decision and summarily dismissed the Commission's request for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 51759
Full Text of Decision 51759
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0520.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision A-0567.99
Full Text of Decision A-0567.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
In characterizing settlement amounts as earnings or non-earnings it is important to keep in mind the basic principles. A settlement payment made in respect of an action for wrongful dismissal is "income arising out of ...employment" unless due to "special circumstances" some portion of it should be regarded as compensation for some other expenses or loss. While the principles enunciated in Renaud (CUB 17899) were "generally" endorsed by the FCA in Dunn (A-0231.95), the Court reiterated that in each case it is a matter of fact to be determined on the evidence as to the various components of the settlement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 42598A
Full Text of Decision 42598A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0567.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Decision 40458
Full Text of Decision 40458
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
If a clmt alleged having incurred a loss as a result of wrongful dismissal and is then compensated by a third party, this loss no longer exists and the clmt must repay to the Commission the benefits paid to him.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid into rrsp |
|
Decision 26203
Full Text of Decision 26203
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
Summary:
The object of the inclusiveness of the definition of "earnings" is to prevent employers and employees from supplementing separation payments with UI benefits, and to prevent former employees from receiving income from two sources.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
awards |
future earnings |
|
| earnings |
awards |
time for payment |
|
Decision 27337
Full Text of Decision 27337
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
related to overtime work |
|
Summary:
Included under 1 of 4 headings are $6,462.55 in payment of overtime that would have been paid through the period of notice. This amount was allocated by the Commission. I am of the view that the Commission did not err in its application of the law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
related to pension rights |
|
Decision 28584
Full Text of Decision 28584
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
related to pension rights |
|
Summary:
Amount of $12,275 paid to compensate for the employer's error, which prevented the claimant from contributing to the pension fund during the last 12 years. In order for monies not to be considered as earnings, they must in no way, constitue benefits derived from employment.
Decision 27337
Full Text of Decision 27337
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
related to pension rights |
|
Summary:
Included under 1 of 4 headings are $2,322.45 on account of pension rights that could have otherwise accrued through the period of notice. This amount was allocated by the Commission. I am of the view that the Commission did not err in its application ofthe law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
related to overtime work |
|
Decision 26203
Full Text of Decision 26203
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
time for payment |
|
Summary:
Oral agreement reached to pay $15,000 in 3 monthly cheques of $5,000. Regardless of the time frame notionally attached to the payment, claimant received the money upon reaching an agreement with his employer concerning the termination of his employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
awards |
rationale |
|
| earnings |
awards |
future earnings |
|
