Employment Insurance (EI)
Decision Information
Employment Insurance – allocation of earnings – general Damages – settlement conference
The Employment Insurance (EI) system is designed to not over-pay individuals when helping those individuals make up for their losses. The general idea is that individuals should rely on earnings, meaning money they got from working, before they rely on EI benefits. Earnings are deducted (minus) from EI benefits. This exercise is known as the allocation of earnings. Money individuals get as a settlement is deducted from EI benefits if the settlement is considered earnings.
The Claimant got EI benefits from November 30, 2014, to April 18, 2015. The Claimant later got a settlement from her employer. The Commission allocated $45,000 of the settlement against the Claimant’s EI benefits, resulting in an overpayment by the Commission to the Claimant of $8,844 in EI benefits. An overpayment means, the Claimant has to pay that money back to the Commission. On appeal by the Claimant, the General Division (GD) found that both the retiring allowance the Claimant got for termination of employment ($22,500) and general damages for allegations of reprisal or harassment ($22,500), were earnings. So, they needed to be allocated against the Claimant’s EI benefits.
The Claimant asked for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division (AD). The Claimant and the Commission participated in a settlement conference at the AD. They reached an agreement on a proposed outcome. The AD agreed with the proposed outcome. The employer paid general damages to the Claimant because of her allegations of reprisal and harassment. The GD said the Claimant had to move ahead with a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal in order for those damages not to be considered earnings. This was a mistake on the part of the GD. The evidence is that the payment for general damages was to compensate the Claimant for something other than loss of earnings. The general damages were not earnings, and should not be allocated against the EI benefits.
The AD allowed permission to appeal, allowed the appeal in part and provided its decision. The general damages of $22,500 are not earnings. So, only the retiring allowance of $22,500 is earnings and is to be allocated against the Claimant’s EI benefits.
Decision Content
Citation: PL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2021 SST 486
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Appeal Division
Decision
| Applicant: | P. L. |
| Respondent: | Canada Employment Insurance Commission |
| Representative: | Susan Prud’homme |
| Decision under appeal: | General Division decision dated January 13, 2017 (GE-16-2503) |
| Tribunal member: | Shirley Netten |
| Decision date: | September 16, 2021 |
| File number: | AD-17-159 |
On this page
- Decision
- Overview
- The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal
- I accept the proposed outcome
- Conclusion
Decision
[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed in part. The general damages of $22,500 are not earnings.
Overview
[2] P. L. (the Claimant) received employment insurance (EI) benefits from November 30, 2014 to April 18, 2015. The Claimant later received a settlement from her employer. The Commission allocated $45,000 of that settlement against the Claimant’s EI claim, resulting in an overpayment of $8844.
[3] On appeal, the General Division found that both the “retiring allowance in respect of the termination of the Grievor’s employment” ($22,500) and the “general damages in respect of the allegations of reprisal or harassment” ($22,500) were earnings that had to be allocated against the Claimant’s EI claim.
[4] The Claimant requested permission to appeal to the Appeal Division.
The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal
[5] The parties participated in a settlement conference. The parties agree that the General Division erred when deciding that the general damages were earnings. They agree that I should grant permission to appeal, allow the appeal in part, and provide a new decision that only the retiring allowance, and not the general damages, should be allocated against the Claimant’s EI claim. With the revised allocation, the Claimant’s overpayment will be reduced to $8330.
I accept the proposed outcome
[6] The employer paid general damages to the Claimant because of her allegations of reprisal and harassment. The General Division indicated that the Claimant had to have proceeded with a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal in order for the associated damages not to be considered earnings. This was an error justifying the Appeal Division’s intervention.Footnote 1
[7] The uncontradicted evidence is that the payment for general damages was to compensate the Claimant for something other than loss of earnings. The general damages were not earnings, and ought not to be allocated against the claim.
Conclusion
[8] Permission to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed in part. The general damages of $22,500 are not earnings. Consequently, only the retiring allowance of $22,500 is to be allocated against the Claimant’s EI claim.