Federal appeal | Employment Insurance
DECISIONS OF UMPIRE
Employee’s resignation was term of settlement agreement
Employee was absent from work for medical reasons. Employee filed grievance for employer’s refusal to pay short term illness and injury benefits. There was settlement agreement. Employee was required to resign. Board concluded sums received for relinquishment of right to reinstatement were not deductible earnings. Umpire affirmed board’s decision that moneys paid by employer to employee were paid in consideration for employee relinquishing right to reinstatement. Application for judicial review was allowed. Umpire erred in failing to correct board error. Employee was not wrongfully dismissed. Employee’s resignation was term of settlement agreement. Right to reinstatement did not arise and was not negotiable. Board considered return to status quo was equivalent to right to reinstatement which was not so. Board’s application of erroneous interpretation of law to facts rendered decision unreasonable.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Warren (Mar. 6, 2012, F.C.A., Blais C.J., Evans and Layden-Stevenson JJ.A., File No. A-280-11) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 116 (7 pp.).
Employee’s resignation was term of settlement agreement
Employee was absent from work for medical reasons. Employee filed grievance for employer’s refusal to pay short term illness and injury benefits. There was settlement agreement. Employee was required to resign. Board concluded sums received for relinquishment of right to reinstatement were not deductible earnings. Umpire affirmed board’s decision that moneys paid by employer to employee were paid in consideration for employee relinquishing right to reinstatement. Application for judicial review was allowed. Umpire erred in failing to correct board error. Employee was not wrongfully dismissed. Employee’s resignation was term of settlement agreement. Right to reinstatement did not arise and was not negotiable. Board considered return to status quo was equivalent to right to reinstatement which was not so. Board’s application of erroneous interpretation of law to facts rendered decision unreasonable.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Warren (Mar. 6, 2012, F.C.A., Blais C.J., Evans and Layden-Stevenson JJ.A., File No. A-280-11) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 116 (7 pp.).
