Summary of Issue: Own Contributions

Decision 26132 Full Text of Decision 26132

What do the regulations say? Do they exempt pensions to which the claimant was the sole contributor? Unfortunately, they do not exempt such pensions. Did and does the claimant's pension arise out of his employment? He cannot help proving that it does.

Decision 24461 Full Text of Decision 24461

Claimant appealed this decision on the basis that she incurred personal expenses of $22,751.24 in order to buy back premiums to receive her pension. CUB 15683 quoted. Clearly, the decision of the Board goes against the jurisprudence and consequently the said Board erred in law.

Decision 21320 Full Text of Decision 21320

His pension from the Federal Government was actually $1,839 gross but he only received $611 because he is paying $1,200 per month back to buy back pension for 17 years of service. Nevertheless, the gross amount must be attributed.

Decision 19544 Full Text of Decision 19544

A portion of his pension flowed from a purchase he had made of credit for time served in the armed services, in respect of which he had paid both the employer's and the employee's contributions. As decided in CUB 15683, that portion must be regarded as arising out of employment.

Decision 18670 Full Text of Decision 18670

The definition of "pension" given in Reg. 57 makes no distinction regarding the relative size of the worker's salary deductions. It does not really matter whether he has contributed, through his premiums, to building up the capital.

Decision 16417 Full Text of Decision 16417

Salaried employee who paid into his own retirement fund over many years before continuing to contribute to the teachers's plan. Regulation 57 makes no distinction between individuals who contribute singly and those who do it jointly with their employer.

Decision 15683 Full Text of Decision 15683

Government employee in Newfoundland who purchased non worked service by payment of double the normal contribution. The whole pension arises out of employment and is earnings. BC Circular 86-1 is erroneous. Charter argument dismissed.

Decision 15310 Full Text of Decision 15310

As this payment was a retirement pension arising out of service in the Canadian Forces, it fell within 57(2)(e) and 58(15). Claimant argues that he paid 50% into a pension plan, so half of the pension must be disregarded. Argument dismissed.