Bell
T.C.J.:
Issue:
The
issue
is
whether
(a)
Workers’
Compensation
benefits
in
the
sum
of
$39,609.61
were
properly
included
in
the
Appellant’s
income
for
his
1996
taxation
year,
and
(b)
the
Appellant
is
required
to
repay
benefits
pursuant
to
the
Employment
Insurance
Act
(“Act”)
for
that
year
in
the
amount
of
$3,082.50.
Facts:
The
Appellant,
an
employee
of
Canadian
National
Railway,
was
injured
in
1993,
suffered
partial
disability
and
applied
for
unemployment
insurance
benefits.
He
testified
that
he
received
notice
from
Workers’
Compensation
that
he
could
take
a
lump
sum
of
$39,609.61
or
monthly
payments
of
$208.00
for
life.
He
further
testified
that
he
went
to
the
Unemployment
Insurance
office
and
asked
whether
by
accepting
the
lump
sum
he’d
be
affected
by
the
“UI”
clawback.
He
said
that
he
had
been
advised
by
the
head
of
Unemployment
Insurance
at
Jasper,
Alberta
that
receipt
of
a
lump
sum
payment
would
not
affect
his
income.
The
Appellant
acknowledged
having
received
and
reported
the
following
sums
in
respect
of
his
1996
taxation
year,
namely:
|
Employment
income
|
$14,524.86
|
|
Employment
insurance
benefits
|
$10,275.00
|
|
Interest
income
|
$
|
62.04
|
|
Other
income
|
$
|
393.16
|
|
Workers’
Compensation
benefits
|
$39,609.61
|
|
Total
income
|
$64,864.67
|
Revenue
Canada
assessed
the
Appellant
for
an
amount
determined
under
a
formula
described
in
the
Notice
of
Appeal
as
being
pursuant
to
the
Act
in
the
amount
of
$3,082.50
for
the
1996
taxation
year
calculated
as
follows:
30%
x
lessor
(sic)
of:
The
inclusion
of
the
previous
amounts
in
the
Appellant’s
income
for
1996
is
not
in
dispute.
The
Appellant
states
simply
that
he
received
incorrect
advice
from
Revenue
Canada,
that
being
the
foundation
of
his
plea.
Unfortunately,
that
cannot
be
of
assistance
to
him.
The
presentation
of
the
formula
by
Revenue
Canada
as
above
set
forth
is
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
section
145
of
the
Act,
particularly
subsections
I
and
4.
They
read
as
follows:
|
(i)
|
total
benefits
paid
to
the
Appellant
|
$10,275.00
|
;or
|
|
(ii)
|
net
income
before
deducting
|
|
|
repayment
=
|
$63,344.95
|
|
|
minus
|
|
|
maximum
yearly
insurable
|
|
|
earnings
of
$39,00.00
x
1.25=
|
$47,750.00
|
|
|
$14,594.95
|
|
|
Repayment=30%
x
10,275.00
-
|
|
$
3,082.50
|
|
145(1)
If
a
claimant’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
exceeds
1.25
times
the
maximum
yearly
insurable
earnings,
the
claimant
shall
repay
to
the
Receiver
General
30%
of
the
lesser
of
(a)
the
total
benefits
paid
to
the
claimant
in
the
taxation
year;
and
(b)
the
amount
by
which
the
claimant’s
income
for
the
taxation
year
exceeds
1.25
times
the
maximum
yearly
insurable
earnings.
Looking
at
subsection
145(1)
the
meaning
of
the
term
“maximum
yearly
insurable
earnings”
becomes
significant.
Through
a
convoluted
statutory
path,
described
in
section
190
and
its
references
,
under
subsection
4(1)
that
term
means
the
sum
of
$39,000
for
1996.
Accordingly,
I
am
in
agreement
with
the
conclusion
reached
by
Revenue
Canada
as
set
forth
above.
Assuming
that
the
Appellant
was
advised
by
an
official
of
Revenue
Canada
in
the
fashion
above
described
(and
1
have
no
reason
to
doubt
that
he
was)
it
is
unfortunate
that
he
made
the
selection
which
triggered
a
repayment
of
benefits.
However,
this,
once
more,
indicates
the
folly
of
relying
upon
advice
from
an
official
of
Revenue
Canada
which
will
be
quick
to
state
that
the
Crown
is
not
bound
by
the
acts
of
her
servants.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content