Summary of Issue: Supplementary Unemployment Benefits

Decision A0065.11 Full Text of Decision A0065.11

The claimant is a teacher. In June 2009, the claimant filed an application for EI maternity benefits. In addition to EI benefits, the claimant, while on maternity leave, was paid supplemental benefits (top up) from her employer. Following the 2 week waiting period, the claimant received a 100% top up for 6 weeks. The Commission determined that the claimant’s normal weekly earnings should be calculated based on the claimant’s annual salary divided by 52 weeks and that for the 6 weeks following the waiting period, she received more than the normal weekly earnings allowable under the EIR. Therefore, the issue was the proper calculation of normal weekly earnings under s. 38 of the EIR. The opinion of the FCA is that the anomaly on which the Commission relies in this complex statutory scheme is neither unique nor so glaring as to warrant rejecting the claimant's approach to the calculation of her normal weekly earnings in the context of this collective agreement between her union and her employer. The application for judicial review was allowed.

Decision 60638 Full Text of Decision 60638

The Commission considered that the claimant's maternity leave benefits paid by the Ontario Ministry of Health, who was not her employer, constituted earnings to be allocated under sections 35 & 36 of the EI Regulations. The Umpire, basing his decision on the wording of section 38 of the EIR, found that any payments that are paid, from whatever source, because of pregnancy or for child care and that when combined with benefits under the Act do not exceed the claimant's normal weekly earnings from her employment, are excluded from the definition of earnings under section 35. If this is not the case, only the part (total of E.I. benefits and benefits from other source) that exceeds the claimant's normal weekly earnings is subject to be deducted from E.I. benefits.

Decision A-0184.95 Full Text of Decision A-0184.95

Plant closure. Monies left in the SUB fund distributed to employees in a lump sum, not paid out as SUB payments on lay-off. The Board erred in allocating the monies on a weekly basis. Reg._58(9) applies. Reversed by FCA who found that payments were governed by Regs. prior to the 1990 modifications.

Decision 24942 Full Text of Decision 24942

Held that the so-called SUB payments were not part of the approved SUB plan, that the approved SUB plan is not paid to employees whose employment has been permanently severed, that the Board erred in law and in fact and that the payments received from the employer (Algoma Steel) were severance pay.

Decision 23619 Full Text of Decision 23619

All parties thought that the approved SUB plan covered parental leave. The Commission found out later, at a time when it was too late for the employer to amend the plan (in line with its primary purpose) to benefit the claimant, that it was not the case. Retroactive ruling.

Decision 19813 Full Text of Decision 19813

Plan approved as of 1-11, so amounts received previously, from 21-8 on, akin to remuneration.

Decision 17954 Full Text of Decision 17954

Plan which did not receive CEIC approval because employer failed to amend collective agreement as required. Retroactive decision that led to a considerable overpayment.