Date: 20000726
Docket: 1999-4256-EI
BETWEEN:
ROBERT J. MUISE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
MacLatchy, D.J.T.C.C.
[1]
This appeal was heard at Brantford, Ontario, on May 29, 2000.
[2]
The Appellant appealed a ruling to the Minister of National
Revenue (the "Minister") for the determination of the
question of whether or not the remuneration he received from The
Expositor Employees' Mutual Benefit Society (the
"Payor"), during the period from July 30, 1998 to
January 22, 1999, was insurable earnings within the meaning of
the Employment Insurance Act (the
"Act").
[3]
By letter dated June 23, 1999, the Minister informed the
Appellant that it had been determined that the remuneration he
received from the Payor, during the period in question, was not
insurable earnings pursuant to paragraph 5(1)(a) of
the Act and subsection 2(1) of the Insurable Earnings
and Collection of Premiums Regulations (the
"Regulations").
[4]
It was common ground that the Appellant was employed by Southam
Inc. and his last day worked was July 17, 1998 and then went on
sick leave. Pursuant to a contract with its employees including
the Appellant, Southam Inc. was required to pay its employees who
were off on sick leave full pay for a period of three days and,
thereafter, 65% of their regular wages during a maximum of
26 weeks. The Appellant was a member of the Brantford
Expositor Mutual Benefit Society to which he contributed certain
funds on a regular basis, in order to provide him with the 35%
reduction in income after the expiration of the three days
of illness. This benefit came to him by way of a separate cheque
from the Society which was included along with his cheque for 65%
of his income from Southam. He, therefore, received in his hands
100% of his income while on sick leave and this would continue
for a period of 26 weeks.
[5]
The Appellant applied for benefits under the Act after the
expiration of the 26-week period as he continued to be
unable to work. The Minister did not recognize the "top
up" monies as insurable earnings because there was no
contract of service between the Appellant and the Payor as the
Appellant was not employed by the Payor.
[6]
Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the Regulations, insurable
earnings are those derived from insurable employment. As there
was no contract of employment between the Payor and the
Appellant, then the earnings received were not insurable as they
were not received from insurable employment. Those "top
up" funds came not from an employer but from the Payor as a
result of something akin to insurance protection. Paragraph
2(3)(d) of the Regulations states that
"earnings does not include a supplement paid to a person ...
by a party other than the employer under a wage loss indemnity
plan". The words, unfortunately, bar the monies received by
the Appellant from the Payor from the Regulations'
meaning of "earnings".
[7]
The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Minister is
confirmed.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 26th day of July 2000.
"W.E. MacLatchy"
D.J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
1999-4256(EI)
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Robert J. Muise and M.N.R.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Brantford, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
May 29, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Honourable
Deputy Judge W.E. MacLatchy
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 26, 2000
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Roger Leclaire
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
1999-4256(EI)
BETWEEN:
ROBERT J. MUISE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on May 29, 2000 at Brantford,
Ontario, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge W.E. MacLatchy
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Roger
Leclaire
JUDGMENT
The
appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Minister is confirmed
in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 26th day of July 2000.
D.J.T.C.C.
Email this Content