Decision 41594
Full Text of Decision 41594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
|
|
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 |
allocation |
separation from work |
|
Decision 76459
Full Text of Decision 76459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
Transfer to RRSP |
|
Summary:
Following a wrongful dismissal complaint, the employer gave the claimant $9,500 in severance pay, comparable to a retirement allowance. The amount was placed in an RRSP in the form of a locked-in retirement account (LIRA). When informed of the payment to the claimant, the Commission determined that it constituted earnings that must be allocated under sections 35 and 36 of the Regulations. The reason for the payment and not its date that determines to what weeks the payment must be allocated. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 67176
Full Text of Decision 67176
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
Transfer to RRSP |
|
Summary:
The critical factors are the reason for the payment and the fact that it was paid or payable, not the use to which the employee chooses to put it. The mere fact that a cheque was issued by the employer to the bank on his behalf does not prove the RRSP was "non-commutable". The Commission maintains the evidence in this case clearly shows that the monies were part of a severance package and not a transfer of pension into a non-commutable RRSP. See also CUB 66442.
Decision T909.18
Full Text of Decision T909.18
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
allocation * |
|
Summary:
This is a Judicial Review to the Federal Court of the SST Appeal's Division's decision to deny leave to appeal the SST General Division 's decision upholding the Commission's determination that the claimant received an EI regular benefits overpayment after receiving severance payment from his former employer. The Federal Court dismissed the application.
Decision A372.15
Full Text of Decision A372.15
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
allocation * |
|
Summary:
The claimant was seeking to challenge a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) which dismissed her application for Judicial Review (JR) of a decision of the Social Security Tribunal (SST)-Appeal Division (AD) denying her leave to appeal of a decision of the SST-General Division (GD). The SST-GD had denied the claimant’s appeal finding that money received as severance pay by the claimant constituted earnings and had to be allocated pursuant to the Employment Insurance (EI) Regulations.
Decision A0370.11
Full Text of Decision A0370.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
allocation * |
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his employment in September 2009, applied for benefits in December 2009 and had received a $20,000 severance payment. The Commission allocated the payment as earnings in accordance with the EIR. The claimant argued that the severance payment should not be allocated from the date that he lost his employment, but should instead be considered as insurable earnings earned during his rate calculation period, thereby increasing his benefit rate. On judicial review, the claimant argued that the application of the Regulations to his circumstances was inequitable or unfair. The EIA ant the EIR impose a duty on the Commission to calculate how a severance payment is to be applied and the rate of benefits a claimant will be entitled to receive once the severance pay has been allocated. In dismissing the application, the FCA agreed that neither the Court, nor the Umpire, nor the BOR have the legal authority to grant the claimant special relief based on his unique circumstances.
Decision A-0170.04
Full Text of Decision A-0170.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Commission had allocated the separation payments received by the claimant on his termination of employment, in accordance with subsection 36(9) of the EI Regulations. The Court determined that the Umpire had not erred and upheld the Commission's decision.
Decision A-0289.03
Full Text of Decision A-0289.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The Court affirmed the decisions of the Board of Referees and the Umpire to the effect that the claimant bore the burden of proving that all or part of the moneys received upon his termination constituted something other than earnings.
Decision 59760
Full Text of Decision 59760
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0170.04
Decision 57135
Full Text of Decision 57135
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0289.03
Decision 39180
Full Text of Decision 39180
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Received $16,140 as severance pay after his position was eliminated. This amount was placed in an RRSP. Umpire found that the fact that the claimant had decided to invest this amount in an RRSP did not change the provisions of the Regulations. The purpose of the payment for termination was to indemnify the claimant for the monetary consequences of early retirement; the amount paid thus came from employment. The BOR thus committed an error in fact and in law in deciding that the amount did not have value as earnings.
Decision A-0741.95
Full Text of Decision A-0741.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
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 |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 25549
Full Text of Decision 25549
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The fact that part of the severance pay was conditional upon the occurrence of a subsequent event, namely that claimant find alternative employment within a specified time frame, does not take it outside the ambit of the Act. It remains income which "arose out of employment" within para. 57(2)(a).
Decision 17564
Full Text of Decision 17564
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Although one can sympathize with a claimant who has been credited with money that he has not yet received, the purpose of the Act is to compensate unemployed persons for a loss, and not to pay benefits to those still receiving money from their former employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 14854
Full Text of Decision 14854
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
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 |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 13515
Full Text of Decision 13515
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0271.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Decision A-0271.87
Full Text of Decision A-0271.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The matter will be returned to the Umpire to decide on the basis that the amounts received by claimant as severance pay, vacation pay and sick leave were earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Decision 12727
Full Text of Decision 12727
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0661.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Decision A-0661.86
Full Text of Decision A-0661.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The sums received by the claimant in 2-86 as severance pay, vacation pay and sick leave are earnings to be allocated under ss. 58(10).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Decision 13534
Full Text of Decision 13534
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
In the face of reg. 57(1), the claimant's submissions are without merit. The amount received would not have been paid had he not been a long-term employee and, in this sense, it must be taken to have arisen out of his employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without earnings |
|
| earnings |
income |
arising out of any employment |
|
Decision A0392.07
Full Text of Decision A0392.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
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 apportioned allocated as provided by Regulation 36(19)(b). The Court, unlike the BOR and the Umpires, found that the severance pay could not be merged with a payment carried out to waive a layoff right or reinstatement right while it was, in the case at hand, solely a layoff right. In federal law, reinstatement right is the right of an employee to resume work following an unjustified discharge, if the reinstatement is granted to that employee. The Umpire and the BOR incorrectly enforced the applicable legislation, namely paragraph 36(19)(b) instead of subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
Monies By Reason of Separation |
|
|
Decision 53706
Full Text of Decision 53706
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant recieved $1,500 upon termination of his employment as he was leaving the parish. Claimant argued that the payment was in the form of a gift and that it should not be considered as earnings from his employment. Argument dismissed by Umpire. The payment of the gift was related to the employment, it required approval from the congregation, it was paid in the form of a bonus or severance pay and considered as income for purpose of income tax.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonuses and gratuities |
|
|
Decision 20965
Full Text of Decision 20965
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0599.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
| earnings |
income |
non-competitive clause |
|
Decision A-0599.92
Full Text of Decision A-0599.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Termination Agreement provides for bi-weekly payments over a 7-year period prohibiting obtaining work in any competitive area. Words used by parties not conclusive. Periodic payments classified as pension income. Also, 50% remains payable to beneficiary upon claimant's death. Upheld by the FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| earnings |
pension |
definition |
|
| earnings |
income |
non-competitive clause |
|
Decision 22110
Full Text of Decision 22110
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Severance pay equal to 2 weeks' pay for each year of service paid to claimant. While this amount may well have exceeded the amount of severance pay the employer was required to pay under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, it does not change the nature of the payment for the purpose of the UI Act.
Decision 14233
Full Text of Decision 14233
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Discussion of distinction made in the Ontario Employment Standards Act between termination pay (actually wages in lieu of notice) and severance pay.
Decision 13810
Full Text of Decision 13810
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Generally paid in recognition of years of service, on the termination of the employer-employee relationship. In many cases, it is governed by collective agreement. Factors considered for calculation: length of service, employee's contribution to orgization and his position.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
in lieu of notice |
|
Decision A-1203.84
Full Text of Decision A-1203.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Severence pay ['indemnité de départ] is payable to an employee who leaves employment without regard to notice of termination of employment he may have received. [Pratte J.A.]
This expression refers to moneys that employer is legally required to pay; English equivalent refers to moneys owing on same basis as salary. [Pratte J.A.]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
nature of monies |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-1195.84
Full Text of Decision A-1195.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant, an employee of Labatt's, rather than termination chose to receive one year's salary over 24 months with full benefits. Contract held to be continuing. The money paid is clearly income and earnings. It cannot be severance pay under 57(3)(f). [p.8]
Quotes CUB 5466 with approval: "I know of no rule of law to the effect that an employee who is dismissed without notice is entitled to something called severance pay." [p. 7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
