Decision A-0263.78

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0263.78 Walford K.  Federal  English 1978-12-05
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Dismissed Unanimous  No N/A 


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.


Date modified: