Summary of Issue: Allocation

Decision A.100.19 Full Text of Decision A.100.19

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Decision 16344A Full Text of Decision 16344A

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

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).

Decision 17677 Full Text of Decision 17677

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

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

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

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.

Decision 15503 Full Text of Decision 15503

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.

Decision 14705 Full Text of Decision 14705

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

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

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.