Federal Appeal

Employment Insurance

Commission finally determined allocation of severance and vacation pay correctly

Applicant was laid off from job and received amount as severance pay. Applicant attended Canada Employment Insurance Commission and informed commission he received severance payment and amount for vacation pay. Applicant was told he would have to wait to apply for benefits. Applicant was subsequently told he would qualify immediately for benefits and new application was antedated. Applicant tried to return cheques he received, because he knew he had to wait because of severance pay. Applicant was informed he could not return cheques. Commission used wrong amount of average of normal weekly earnings from employment in calculating number of weeks applicant would have to wait to collect benefits with result that number of weeks was less than it would have been if correct amount were used. Commission determined applicant had debt to commission and debt was paid. Commission made determination of how severance and vacation pay should have been allocated and applicant should have waited another 11 weeks before receiving benefits. Applicant was found to be entitled to receive benefits for 52 weeks, but timing for payment was delayed because he received severance and vacation pay. Board of referees dismissed applicant’s appeal on basis that final determination was correct. Umpire dismissed appeal. Applicant sought judicial review. Application dismissed. Commission finally determined allocation of severance amount and vacation pay correctly and in accordance with legislative provisions. There was no basis to interfere with decision of umpire.

Robinson v. Canada (Attorney General) (Oct. 29, 2013, F.C.A., David Stratas J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and D.G. Near J.A., File No. A-453-12) 234 A.C.W.S. (3d) 929.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?