Summary of Issue: Commissions

Decision 77097 Full Text of Decision 77097

The issue is whether commissions owing to the claimant should be allocated pursuant to Section 36 of the EI Act. The claimant says they were owed only after a decision of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board, in her favour rendered on April 16, 2010 after she had finished receiving benefits. The Commission argued the commissions were owed when they should have been received by the claimant, which was in the fall of 2009, early 2010 when she was receiving benefits. The commissions are attributable to the weeks they would have been received in the normal course. As well, the Labour and Employment Board did not create the right to the commissions – they simply confirmed the entitlement to it. The appeal by the commission is allowed and the Board’s decision is rescinded.

Decision 69251 Full Text of Decision 69251

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

Decision 67767 Full Text of Decision 67767

The employer, a travel agency, had confirmed that the commission had been earned only when the trip had been confirmed. The delay in paying was simply due to the need to confirm the actual cost of the trip. The Board could therefore find that the commission had to be allocated to the week in which the services were rendered that gave rise to the commission.

Decision 66558 Full Text of Decision 66558

The claimant received commissions for insurance policies he sold/bought for/from his employer, Clarica, for himself, his spouse and his son. He argued that this type of income is not taxable under the Quebec Income Tax Act. By endorsing the proposed financial measure and deciding that it applied in this case, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no relationship between the fact that a commission might not have to be considered income to be declared for taxes and the fact that it can still meet the definition of earnings within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act.

Decision 36387A Full Text of Decision 36387A

A payment on account of real estate was issued to the claimant. 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, not when the offer to purchase was signed.

Decision 33339 Full Text of Decision 33339

While on maternity leave, claimant received $4,109.87. Earnings arose from commission paid in relation to the sale of a house arranged by claimant prior to her leaving her employment. Earnings to be allocated to the week in which the commission is paid when the transaction closes.

Decision 25395 Full Text of Decision 25395

Monthly commission based partly on managerial work and partly on sales made by consultants allocated by the CEIC to every week of the month. If claimant is unable to demonstrate which amounts are which, the burden being on her to show that the allocation is wrong, the allocation should be restored. As for the portion of the amounts she received which is attributable solely to sales by the company to her consultants, those amounts should be allocated under ss. 58(6) "to the week in which the transaction occurred", namely, the week in which the sales were made by the company to the consultants. She says her earnings were not based on commissions as she was not selling anything. I do not accept this. Her income was based on sales made by the company to her consultants. She was earning a commission on sales made, through her initial efforts in recruiting consultants, to those consultants. Commission based on sales made by claimant's consultants. If a specific portion of the commission she received can be calculated as related to her managerial work, i.e. to the performance of "services", then that portion should be allocated to the weeks in which she performed those services.

Decision 20979 Full Text of Decision 20979

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. Amounts adequately distributed pursuant to Reg. 58(6) on training period.

Decision 20034 Full Text of Decision 20034

In addition to doing some direct selling herself, she received at the end of each month a commission from sales of those persons she supervised. Earnings to be allocated to weeks in which services were performed, i.e. on pro rata basis for each week of the month. Selling cosmetics part-time. She did some direct selling herself and for this she would be paid a commission. Those are earnings of a self-employed person and should be allocated to the week in which the services are performed, namely to the week in which the sales were made.