Anonymous

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

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.
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.


Income that '''does not''' count as earnings and will not delay the start of the claim includes:  
Income that '''does not''' count as earnings and will not delay the start of the claim includes:  
5,230

edits