Summary of Issue: Liability To Repay Ui

Decision 40237 Full Text of Decision 40237

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

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.

Decision A-1023.91 Full Text of Decision A-1023.91

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.

Decision 19676A Full Text of Decision 19676A

Refer to: A-1023.91

Decision 19770 Full Text of Decision 19770

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.

Decision T-0853.87 Full Text of Decision T-0853.87

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.

Decision T-2420.83 Full Text of Decision T-2420.83

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.

Decision A-1780.83 Full Text of Decision A-1780.83

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.