Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
Those two questions (whether the payment was earnings and whether in respect of a week of unemployment) must be answered in the light of regs. 172 and 173 which were adopted pursuant to 58(q) of the Act. That section empowers the Commission to make regulations defining earnings.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The Act sets up a scheme for protection against loss of income. It is not to pay benefits to persons who have not suffered any loss. One who has been compensated does not suffer any loss; the loss no longer exists. To be interpreted so as to prevent from paying UI if no loss.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire said that the impossibility of determining which part of 4550$ was due to loss of wages resulted in an impossibility of determining that the sum was income. That reasoning cannot be accepted. It ignores 40(1): claimant not entitled unless he proves entitlement.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
Summary:
The judgment of this Court in Atkins was rendered under the Income Tax Act. It cannot be invoked when interpreting the UI Regulations unless it be clear that the word "income" has the same meaning in both enactments.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The judgment of this Court in Atkins was rendered under the Income Tax Act. It cannot be invoked when interpreting the UI Regulations unless it be clear that the word "income" has the same meaning in both enactments.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
awards |
as income |
|
Summary:
Damages paid to a dismissed employee are income arising out of employment. Unless claimant proves under 54(1) that damages were made for some other reason, the Commission may assume that the entire amount represents lost income.
If claimant had established facts from which it could have been reasonably inferred that he had been compensated for something other than loss of wages, the Commission would have had to evaluate, as fairly as it could, the part attributed to the loss ofwages.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Summary:
It seems that part of damages were paid to defray legal costs, the amount of which claimant has always refused to divulge. Unless the Commission believes that no part was so paid, it has the duty to estimate, as fairly as it could, that part and treat only the residue as income.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
amount unknown |
|
Summary:
The Umpire said that the impossibility of determining which part of 4550$ was due to loss of wages resulted in an impossibility of determining that the sum was income. That reasoning cannot be accepted. It ignores 40(1): claimant not entitled unless he proves entitlement.