[2012] 4 F.C.R. D-3
Employment Insurance
Judicial review of Umpire’s decision (CUB 76095) allowing Canada Employment Insurance Commission’s appeal from ruling by board of referees allowing applicant’s appeal from Commission’s ruling applicant receiving overpayment of Employment Insurance (EI) maternity benefits—Pursuant to Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332, s. 35(2)(c)(ii), EI benefits reduced by amount of any earnings arising out of employment claimant receiving while in receipt of EI benefits—Regulations, s. 38 creating partial exception: Payments made to claimant because of pregnancy not treated as “earnings” for purpose of s. 35, not reducing EI maternity benefits except to extent payments, EI benefits combined exceeding “normal weekly earnings”—Commission herein deciding combination of EI benefits, salary top-up paid to applicant by employer exceeding “normal weekly earnings”—Commission reducing EI benefits accordingly, resulting in overpayment—Meaning to be given to “normal weekly earnings” under Regulations—Applicant, teacher, arguing since collective agreement governing employment only requiring teachers work for 194 days of school year, salary should be attributed to those days— Commission determining “normal weekly earnings” by dividing annualized salary by 52 weeks of year—Fact collective agreement providing teachers leaving employment during school year entitled to payment calculated on basis of number of days worked, divided by 194 days of school year clear indication teachers not paid for months of July, August—Whether teachers paid their salary in instalments spread over ten months or twelve months not relevant to calculation of “normal weekly earnings”—Application allowed.
Chaulk v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-65-11, 2012 FCA 190, Evans J.A., judgment dated June 22, 2012, 18 pp.)