Decision A0373.07

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A0373.07 Thériault  Desjardins  French 2008-09-24
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Judicial Review Dismissed  No Claimant  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings  compensatory leave 

Summary:

The claimant filed a claim for benefits and it was established effective October 9, 2005 and he continued to receive sick leave pay until March 10, 2006. EI benefits were paid to him from March 14 to May 8, 2006. Between March 11 and April 28, 2006, he received wage-loss payments that he refused to cash. The Umpire upheld the Commission's decision that these amounts constituted earnings under 35(2)(c)(i) of the EIR and had to be allocated pursuant to 36(12) EIR. The FCA refused to decide on this issue since, in its opinion, the Umpire committed an error in law by neglecting to enquire about whether, under the circumstances, the claimant was entitled to the benefits. If there was no interruption of earnings, the claimant was not entitled to the benefits and the Commission had no jurisdiction in this case. The Commission could not decide on the earnings and the allocation until they make sure of the claimant's entitlement to employment benefits.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires  errors in law 

Summary:

The claimant filed a claim for benefits and it was established effective October 9, 2005 and he continued to receive sick leave pay until March 10, 2006. EI benefits were paid to him from March 14 to May 8, 2006. Between March 11 and April 28, 2006, he received wage-loss payments that he refused to cash. The Umpire upheld the Commission's decision that these amounts constituted earnings under 35(2)(c)(i) of the EIR and had to be allocated pursuant to 36(12) EIR. The FCA refused to decide on this issue since, in its opinion, the Umpire committed an error in law by neglecting to enquire about whether, under the circumstances, the claimant was entitled to the benefits. If there was no interruption of earnings, the claimant was not entitled to the benefits and the Commission had no jurisdiction in this case. The Commission could not decide on the earnings and the allocation until they make sure of the claimant's entitlement to employment benefits.


Date modified: