Anonymous

Benefit Period of Employment Insurance (8:V): Difference between revisions

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 32: Line 32:


Recent cases suggest that in certain circumstances some  earnings '''may not delay''' the start of an EI claim. In ''Attorney General of Canada v Doreen Myers'', 2006 FCA57 the court found that the  claimant’s vacation pay did not delay the start of a claim because it was not a payment made by reason of a separation, thus allowing benefits to be received earlier, and possibly at a higher rate.
Recent cases suggest that in certain circumstances some  earnings '''may not delay''' the start of an EI claim. In ''Attorney General of Canada v Doreen Myers'', 2006 FCA57 the court found that the  claimant’s vacation pay did not delay the start of a claim because it was not a payment made by reason of a separation, thus allowing benefits to be received earlier, and possibly at a higher rate.
The case of ''Attorney General of Canada v Alexander Hamilton'', 2007 FCA 104 suggests that a money payment that is made in order to compensate an employee for not pursing remedies for wrongful dismissal is not earnings and will therefore not delay the start of benefits.


See also the case of ''Attorney General of Canada v Bielich'', 2005 FCA 363. In this case the court allowed a $24,000 payment to be exempted from the claimant’s allocation of earnings because the purpose of the payment was to compensate the claimant for giving up his right to seek reinstatement, not to compensate for lost pay.  
See also the case of ''Attorney General of Canada v Bielich'', 2005 FCA 363. In this case the court allowed a $24,000 payment to be exempted from the claimant’s allocation of earnings because the purpose of the payment was to compensate the claimant for giving up his right to seek reinstatement, not to compensate for lost pay.  
6,151

edits