Dockets: 2013-2875(IT)I
BETWEEN:
SCOTT HENSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on February 6, 2014 at Vancouver, British Columbia
Before: The Honourable
Justice J.M. Woods
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Geraldine Chen
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
It is ordered that the appeal
with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act and the Employment
Insurance Act for the 2012 taxation year is dismissed. Each party shall
bear their own costs.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia this 7th
day of February 2014.
“J.M. Woods”
Citation: 2014 TCC 43
Date: 20140207
Dockets: 2013-2875(IT)I
BETWEEN:
SCOTT HENSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Woods J.
[1]
Scott Henson appeals in respect of
an assessment made under the Employment Insurance Act which determined
that he was required to repay a portion of employment insurance benefits paid
to him in 2012. The amount of the repayment is $3,959.40.
[2]
Section 145 of the Employment
Insurance Act requires a repayment of up to 30 percent of employment insurance
benefits paid in a year if the individual’s income for the year exceeds a
threshold amount, which in this case is $57,375. Income for this purpose is
determined in accordance with the Income Tax Act, with minor
adjustments.
[3]
Pursuant to an assessment made
under the Income Tax Act for the 2012 taxation year, Mr. Henson’s income
was determined to be $88,875 (before deduction of the EI repayment). At this
income level, Mr. Henson was required to repay the maximum portion of
employment insurance benefits under section 145, which was 30 percent.
[4]
At the hearing, counsel for the
Crown described the relevant legislative provisions in some detail. Mr. Henson
informed the Court that he understands the legislation, but he is requesting
relief on grounds that the result is harsh in his particular circumstances.
[5]
I have some sympathy for Mr.
Henson’s plight. The EI repayment is required because Mr. Henson received an
unusual income amount in December 2012. If this amount had been received in
2013, there would not have been any claw back of employment insurance benefits
because Mr. Henson’s entitlement to benefits expired at the end of 2012.
[6]
The exceptional income receipt was
a lump sum payment of a workers’ compensation claim in the amount of $69,000.
The claim related to a workplace injury in 2010, and it happened to be paid in
December 2012.
[7]
It is unfortunate for Mr. Henson
that the claim was settled late in 2012, and that it was paid in a lump sum
rather than by monthly payments. Mr. Henson had no control over this.
[8]
The result seems to be harsh in
Mr. Henson’s particular circumstances, but it is not appropriate for me to
grant any relief. It is the prerogative of Parliament to enact such laws as it
sees fit. In this case, the legislation clearly provides for this result, and
there is no relief that the Court can give.
[9]
The appeal will be dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 7th day of February 2014.
“J.M. Woods”
CITATION: 2014 TCC 43
COURT FILE NO.: 2013-2875(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: SCOTT HENSON and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2014
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice J.M. Woods
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 7, 2014
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Geraldine Chen
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: n/a
Firm:
For the
Respondent: William F. Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content