1 Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal by [the Appellant] AICAC File No.: AC and AC PANEL: APPEARANCES: Ms Laura Diamond, Chairperson Ms Linda Newton Ms Wendy Sol The Appellant, [text deleted], appeared on her own behalf; Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation ('MPIC') was represented by Ms Danielle Robinson. HEARING DATE: November 7, 2011 ISSUE(S): RELEVANT SECTIONS: 1. Whether Income Replacement Indemnity benefits were correctly calculated for the period April 21, 2008 to April 15, Whether Income Replacement Indemnity benefits were correctly calculated for the period April 16, 2009 to September 30, Whether Income Replacement Indemnity benefits were correctly calculated pursuant to Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act. Sections 84, 111, 112, 163 of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act ( MPIC Act ) and Sections 2, 5, 6 and 10 of Manitoba Regulation 39/94 AICAC NOTE: THIS DECISION HAS BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT THE PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION OF INDIVIDUALS BY REMOVING PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS AND OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. Reasons For Decision The Appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 13, As a result of her injuries she was unable to work for a period of time and became entitled to Income Replacement Indemnity ( IRI ) benefits. She also received reimbursement for some treatment benefits, such as chiropractic care.
2 2 The Appellant filed appeals with the Commission regarding several issues, which resulted in the following decisions of the Commission: 1. AC , dated June 25, The Commission found that the Appellant s case manager and an Internal Review Officer had erred in finding that the Appellant was a non-earner, who at the time of the accident was unemployed. The Commission found that at the time of the accident the Appellant was a temporary earner and that her entitlement to benefits for the first 180 days after the motor vehicle accident should be determined according to Section 83(1) of the MPIC Act. 2. AC , dated August 27, The Commission found that MPIC had prematurely terminated the Appellant s IRI benefits as of April 15, 2009, when it concluded that she was able to return to work on a full-time basis. The Commission found that the Appellant was not able to hold her determined employment as of April 16, 2009 as a result of her motor vehicle accident related injuries. The Commission also found that the Appellant s post-concussion symptoms were related to the motor vehicle accident of April 13, 2008 and found that her IRI benefits should be reinstated effective April 16, 2009 and continue until such time as terminated in accordance with the MPIC Act. 3. AC , dated February 23, The Commission dismissed the Appellant s appeal from a decision of the Internal Review Officer which upheld her case manager s decision concluding that the appropriate 180 day determination of the Appellant s employment to be support occupations in motion pictures, broadcasting and the performing Arts. At that appeal hearing, the Appellant raised the issue of whether her IRI benefits had been correctly calculated in accordance with Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act, as she was concerned that the IRI from the
3 3 determined employment was less than the IRI she received during the first 180 days after the accident. The decision also dealt with chiropractic benefits. The Commission concluded that that issue was not before it on the appeal, but referred that matter back to MPIC s case manager for a determination of whether the Appellant s IRI benefits were correctly calculated in accordance with Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act. Subsequently, the Appellant was provided with two Internal Review Decisions which dealt with the question of the calculation of her IRI benefits between April 21, 2008 and April 15, 2009, as well as between April 16, 2009 and September 30, The Internal Review Officer looked at the calculation of the amounts owed to the Appellant for IRI, including the method of interest calculation. January 25, 2011 Internal Review Decision: The Appellant s case manager wrote to her on August 13, 2010, setting out her classification as a non-earner, and setting out the history of her IRI calculations based on employments she would have held between April 21, 2008 and October 10, A reconciliation dated July 19, 2010 set out $57.52 in IRI benefits along with $5.53 in interest. The Appellant sought an Internal Review of this decision, based upon Section 84(1) and 84(3) of the MPIC Act. The Appellant was also provided with a decision dated October 20, 2010 setting out a reconciliation of her IRI benefits between April 16, 2009 and September 30, The decision concluded that she was owed $34,994, with interest of $ calculated upon this amount. The Appellant sought an Internal Review of this decision, taking the position that the interest was incorrectly calculated.
4 4 An Internal Review Decision dated January 25, 2011 stated that the Appellant was classified as a non-earner. The Internal Review Officer stated:...you were not a temporary earner at the time of the accident; you were classified as a non-earner as defined by legislation. Then, after citing Section 70(1) of the MPIC Act defining a non-earner and Section 85 for determining the IRI for a non-earner, the Internal Review Officer concluded that: Based on my review of the file, the reconciliation of your IRI benefits for the period April 21, 2008 to April 15, 2009 inclusive was correctly assessed and calculated... The case manager s decision was upheld in this regard. In considering the reconciliation of the Appellant s IRI benefits for the period between April 16, 2009 and September 30, 2010, the Internal Review Officer reviewed information received from the Income Replacement Indemnity Supervisor regarding the interest calculation. She indicated that interest rates were based on the Quarterly Court of Queen s Bench Prejudgment Interest Rates, and had been correctly calculated. June 7, 2011 Internal Review Decision: Following the Commission s decision in AC , MPIC provided the Appellant with a letter dated March 31, 2011, which dealt with the question of whether MPIC was deviating from Section 84 of the MPIC Act. The letter indicated: In regards to your statement that MPIC is deviating from the legislation and the Commission s opinion? In regards to section 84. We are following the act and regulations. I will again kindly refer you to the Manitoba Regulations 39/94 which state: GYEI not derived from self-employment 2 Subject to this regulation, a victim s gross yearly employment income not derived from self-employment at the time of the accident is the sum of the following amounts:
5 5 (b) in the case of a temporary earner or part-time earner, the salary or wages that are received or receivable with respect to employment that the temporary earner or part-time earner held or would have held, if the accident had not occurred, and that are the greater of (ii) the salary or wages receivable during the first 180 days following the date of the accident divided by 180 and then multiplied by 365; The Appellant sought an Internal Review of this decision. An Internal Review Decision of June 7, 2011 considered whether the Appellant s IRI benefits from the 181 st day following the accident were correctly calculated pursuant to Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act. This involved a review of the letter dated March 31, The Internal Review Officer stated: Section 84(1) creates an entitlement to an IRI for temporary earners and part-time earners during the first 180 days after the accident in circumstances where the claimant, but for the accident, would have held employment during that time (copy enclosed). Your file was reviewed by Manitoba Public Insurance s Income Replacement Indemnity Supervisor on May 26, In his memorandum, the following was noted: I have reviewed the calculation and it looks like the calculation is consistent to section 84(1) of the MPI Act. [The Appellant s] earnings varied throughout the first 180 days. Some periods with very high income and some with very low income. But on average, the GYEI was $41, As you can see from the highlighted section below; IRI can t be less than what the claimant was receiving during the first 180 days. What the claimant was receiving in the first 180 days was calculated as $41, She did not make $72, in the first 180 days. In the first 180 days, according to the calculation, she made $41, It is based on what the claimant was receiving. Section 84(1) makes no references to GYEI, if it did, then she would be entitled to the $72, But it just states that it can t be less than what was paid in the first 180 days. The amount paid in the first 180 days is $41,379.03, not $72, The Internal Review Officer concluded that the IRI benefits were correctly calculated pursuant to Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act and upheld the letter of March 31, It is from these decisions of the Internal Review Officer that the Appellant has now appealed.
6 6 Permanent Impairment: Some permanent Impairment benefit issues have already been heard by the Commission and dealt with in its decision in AC and AC , dated September 15, As well, the Commission notes that the Internal Review Decisions of January 25, 2011 and June 7, 2011 also dealt with issues of Permanent Impairment and the Appellant still has further Permanent Impairment benefit appeals before the Commission. These matters are still outstanding and were not before the panel at the appeal hearing of November 7, It was agreed that the issues before the Commission in the current appeal hearing involved the method of calculating the Appellant s IRI benefits in the first 180 days following the motor vehicle accident, and following the 181 st day after the motor vehicle accident. Evidence and Submission for the Appellant: The Appellant submitted that none of the calculations which MPIC had made in calculating her IRI benefits for the first 180 days following the accident and after the 181 st day were correct. She noted that at the time of the motor vehicle accident she was a member of three union locals in her industry, yet MPIC had only contacted one of these locals to try and ascertain what she might have been making at the time. She reviewed the assessments of her potential income which MPIC had made, and noted that MPIC had missed some things, such as amounts allocated for kit rental. She noted that in some jobs for art departments, she was required to have a cell phone, printer, scanner and software and she would be paid a certain amount per week to compensate her for providing these items.
7 7 The Appellant also explained that when MPIC assessed amounts which should be attributed to the jobs she would have held, it failed to take into account her proper position on the seniority list with her union locals. In reviewing MPIC s calculations for the period following the 181 st day after the accident, the Appellant submitted that it should have been based upon the IRI attributed to her for the first 180 days. Because one of the employments she would have held for the first three months would have resulted in a GYEI of approximately $72,000 (on an annual basis), the Appellant submitted that she should be paid IRI following the 181 st day based on an annual income of $72,000. The Appellant submitted that because Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act provided that an earner was entitled, after the first 180 days, to an IRI which shall be not less than any IRI the temporary earner or part-time earner was receiving during the first 180 days after the accident, she must receive IRI based upon the highest earning employment identified. The Appellant also pointed out that both the case manager and the Internal Review Officer erroneously referred to her as a non-earner, instead of a temporary earner. The Appellant questioned the interest calculations made by the IRI calculator upon her IRI benefits. She took the position that the interest attributed was too low, and that, since MPIC had made so many errors in calculation, this interest calculation must also be incorrect. The Appellant also questioned the notional deductions that MPIC had made against her income benefits for Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance and Income Tax. She did not understand how these figures had been arrived at and submitted that MPIC had failed to respect
8 8 maximum caps set upon these deductions under the Income Tax Act. The deductions made by MPIC did not reflect the real world situation. The Appellant also questioned the employments which the IRI calculator used for calculating her potential income, noting that the calculator and the case manager had missed employments that she regularly held and had considered some employments which she never held. The Appellant also submitted that MPIC had over-inflated the amounts which she had earned, on a part-time basis, after the accident. The Appellant submitted that Section 84(1) was the only relevant section to her IRI calculation. She stated that she had received IRI of $72,000 in the first 180 days and therefore she must receive that after the 181 st day. Regulation 39/94 was irrelevant and should not be taken into account. Evidence and Submission for MPIC: Counsel for MPIC acknowledged that the Internal Review Officer had erred in referring to the Appellant as a non-earner, and agreed that she should be classified as a temporary earner. Counsel argued that Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act must be tempered by Section 84(3) of the MPIC Act and reviewed the requirements of that Section. She acknowledged that the IRI calculator had simply taken an average of the employments considered for the first 180 days, in order to arrive at appropriate IRI for the 181 st day and following. However, this did not correctly follow the scheme set out in the MPIC Act. The case manager and IRI calculator had failed to take into consideration all of the factors set out in Section 84(3) of the MPIC Act. As such,
9 9 counsel recommended that these calculations be referred back to the IRI calculator for recalculation. Counsel for MPIC reviewed the legislative scheme, and in particular Section 163 of the MPIC Act, noting that the IRI calculator had followed this scheme in attributing interest to the Appellant s IRI benefits, using the provisions of the Queen s Bench Act. Counsel also submitted that MPIC had correctly applied the provisions of Section 111 and 112 of the Act as well as Regulation 39/94 (Section 10) in determining the appropriate notional deductions to be made regarding CPP, EI and Income Tax deductions. However, she acknowledged that these amounts would have to be recalculated once a new IRI calculation had been made. She also indicated that while MPIC was attending to the recalculation of the Appellant s IRI benefits, it was also prepared to investigate the questions of the kit rental amount to be attributed to her income, as well as the effect of her seniority. She was also prepared to have MPIC conduct an investigation with the three local unions the Appellant named, as well as obtain more information regarding the part-time employment held by the Appellant. Discussion: The onus is on the Appellant, to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the Internal Review Decisions of January 5, 2011 and June 7, 2011 were not correct. Section 84 of the MPIC Act provides: Entitlement to I.R.I. after first 180 days
10 10 84(1) For the purpose of compensation from the 181st day after the accident, the corporation shall determine an employment for the temporary earner or part-time earner in accordance with section 106, and the temporary earner or part-time earner is entitled to an income replacement indemnity if he or she is not able because of the accident to hold the employment, and the income replacement indemnity shall be not less than any income replacement indemnity the temporary earner or part-time earner was receiving during the first 180 days after the accident. Where victim held several employments 84(2) If the temporary earner or part-time earner held more than one employment immediately before the accident, the corporation shall determine only one employment under section 106. Determination of I.R.I. 84(3) The corporation shall determine the income replacement indemnity referred to in subsection (1) on the basis of the gross income that the corporation determines the victim could have earned from the employment, considering (a) whether the victim could have held the employment on a full-time or part-time basis; (b) the work experience and earnings of the victim in the five years before the accident; and (c) the regulations. Manitoba Regulation 39/94 provides: GYEI of a temporary or part-time earner for first 180 days 5(1) The gross yearly employment income of a temporary earner or part-time earner for the first 180 days after the date of accident is the amount calculated under sections 2 and 3. GYEI of temporary earner or part-time earner after 180th day 5(2) The gross yearly employment income for a temporary earner or part-time earner after the 180 th day following the date of the accident is the greatest of the amounts determined under subsection (1) and sections 6 and 7. GYEI of victim holding employment corresponding to determined employment for five years and at time of accident 6 The gross yearly employment income of a victim who, at the time of the accident, held employment corresponding to employment determined for him or her by the corporation and who, in the five calendar years preceding the date of the accident, held such employment, is the greatest gross yearly employment income earned by the victim from
11 11 the employment in any of those calendar years as determined under sections 2 and 3, indexed under Schedule B and then adjusted under Schedule A. Calculation of IRI: The Appellant takes the position that the language of Section 84(1) of the MPIC Act, through the use of the word shall, is mandatory. She notes that a portion of that section states that IRI after the first 180 days following a motor vehicle accident shall be not less than any income replacement indemnity the temporary earner... was receiving during the first 180 days after the accident. The Appellant asserted that she made $72, in the first 180 days following the motor vehicle accident. The Appellant submitted that because the highest of the promised employments she would have held for a portion of the first 180 days following the motor vehicle accident (April 21, 2008 to June 2, 2008) resulted in a GYEI calculation of $72, and a biweekly entitlement of $1,731.67, this alone should be the basis of her entitlement to IRI benefits from the 181 st day following the accident. She submits that the other sections of the MPIC Act (including 84(3) and the Regulations) are irrelevant and should be ignored by MPIC and the Commission. Counsel for MPIC submitted that Section 84(1) must be tempered by Section 84(3) of the Act and by Manitoba Regulation 39/94, and in particular Sections 5 and 6 of that regulation. The effect of these sections of the Act and Regulations combine to require that MPIC perform specific calculations in order to arrive at the appropriate IRI benefits after 180 days.
12 12 Section 84(3) provides that MPIC shall determine IRI benefits under section 84(1) on the basis of the GYEI that the Appellant could have earned by considering: 1. Whether the claimant could have held employment on a full-time or part-time basis. 2. The work experience and earnings of the claimant in the five years before the accident. 3. The Regulations. Section 5(1) of Regulation 39/94 operates to determine IRI benefits in the first 180 days, based on Section 2 of that Regulation. MPIC submits that Section 2(b)(ii) is applicable for this payment. GYEI not derived from self-employment 2 Subject to this regulation, a victim s gross yearly employment income not derived from self-employment at the time of the accident is the sum of the following amounts: (b) in the case of a temporary earner or part-time earner, the salary or wages that are received or receivable with respect to employment that the temporary earner or part-time earner held or would have held, if the accident had not occurred, and that are the greater of (ii) the salary or wages receivable during the first 180 days following the date of the accident divided by 180 and then multiplied by 365; Section 5(2) of the Regulation assists with the determination of GYEI after the 180 th day. That section of the Regulation states that the GYEI after the 180 th day is the greatest of the amount already determined under Section 5(1) or the amount resulting from the application of Section 6, which refers to income earned by a victim from employment in any of the 5 calendar years preceding the motor vehicle accident, on an indexed and adjusted basis. Counsel for MPIC admitted that MPIC had failed to follow the procedure dictated by these sections of the Act and Regulations, when calculating the Appellant s 181 day entitlement to IRI benefits. What the IRI calculator should have done, she submits, was to go through and compile
13 13 information from the 5 years prior to the motor vehicle accident and take that into consideration in the calculations. It does not appear, she noted, that this had occurred. Rather, the IRI calculator had simply taken an average of the IRI calculations from the first 180 days. Counsel for MPIC also submitted that the Appellant s interpretation of the legislation leads to an illogical result. She submitted that if a claimant was to have held an unusually high paying job for a portion of the first 180 days following an accident, MPIC should not be required to base IRI benefits after 180 days on this amount alone, because it does not correctly reflect the earning potential the claimant has lost as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The Commission has reviewed Section 84 of the Act and Regulation 39/94. The panel agrees with the submission of counsel for MPIC that all of these provisions must be considered together and applied when calculating IRI benefits pursuant to Section 84(1). As MPIC has failed to apply all of the appropriate sections of the Act and Regulations referred to above, the Commission will uphold the Appellant s appeal in this regard, and overturn the decisions of the Internal Review Officer dated January 25, 2011 and June 7, The Commission will refer the calculation of the Appellant s IRI benefits for the period from the 181 st day following the motor vehicle accident to date, back to the IRI calculator for recalculation. Temporary Earner:
14 14 The Commission also notes that, as agreed by the Appellant and counsel for MPIC, the Internal Review Officer erred in her decision of January 25, 2011, when she referred to the Appellant as a non-earner, as clearly the Appellant had already been determined as a temporary earner in the Commission s prior decision dated June 25, Accordingly, the Commission finds that the decision of the Internal Review Officer dated January 25, 2011 should be varied to reflect the Appellant s status as a temporary earner. Interest: The Appellant has challenged the calculations and formulas used by MPIC in arriving at the interest to be added to her IRI benefit payments. She submitted that MPIC has been wrong in every other calculation it has made, and therefore she wants a breakdown of the formulas and interest used. Counsel for MPIC relied upon the legislative provisions of the MPIC Act and the Queen s Bench Act to submit that the method of interest calculation used by MPIC was correct. She explained that a computer tool used by the IRI calculator calculates interest based upon a quarterly rate for interest set out under Section 79 of the Queen s Bench Act. The reason the Queen s Bench Act rates are utilized, is found under Section 163 of the MPIC Act which provides: Successful applicant is entitled to interest 163 Where a person's application for a review or appeal is successful, the corporation shall pay interest to the person on any indemnity or expense to which the person is found to have been entitled before the review or appeal, at the prejudgment rate of interest determined under section 79 of The Court of Queen's Bench Act, computed from the day on which the person was entitled to the indemnity or expense.
15 15 Counsel for MPIC submitted that MPIC had properly followed this process in calculating interest upon the Appellant s benefit entitlement. However, counsel for MPIC also acknowledged that if the IRI calculations referred to above had not been properly calculated, then interest payments would have to also be recalculated as a result. The panel finds that the Appellant has failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the method used by MPIC for calculating interest was in error. The panel finds that the calculation formulas used complied with the MPIC Act and Regulations, utilizing the amounts set out in accordance with The Court of Queen s Bench Act. However, we note that, in referring IRI calculations back to the IRI calculator, these interest calculations may also need to be recalculated as well. Accordingly, the Commission will refer the matter of interest calculation back to the IRI calculator. Deductions: The Appellant submits that MPIC failed to follow the maximum deduction limits allowed per calendar year for CPP, EI and Income Tax, in accordance with the Income Tax Act. She submitted that MPIC exceeded the maximum deductions allowed. The Appellant submitted that every single calculation that MPIC had done in regards to her claim was wrong. The Appellant submitted that these deductions did not reflect what would happen and what the deductions would be and how the deductions would be made in the real world.
16 16 Counsel for MPIC submitted that for each potential employment used in calculating IRI, MPIC is required to make calculations for deductions for CPP, EI and Income Tax, on a separate basis for each employment. She submitted that MPIC complied with Section 111 and 112 of the MPIC as well as Section 10 of Regulation 39/94 in making these calculations. I.R.I. is 90% of net income 111(1) The income replacement indemnity of a victim under this Division is equal to 90% of his or her net income computed on a yearly basis. Determination of net income 112(1) A victim's net income is his or her gross yearly employment income, to a maximum of the maximum yearly insurable earnings established under section 114, less an amount determined, in accordance with the regulations, for income tax under The Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Act (Canada), premiums under the Employment Insurance Act (Canada) and contributions under the Canada Pension Plan. Net income is GYEI less certain deductions 10(1) For the purpose of this regulation, the net income of a victim is the gross yearly employment income of the victim determined under this regulation, less the following: (a) the income tax payable by the victim, as determined under subsection (3); (b) the premiums payable by the victim in respect of unemployment insurance, as determined under subsection (5); (c) the contributions payable by the victim in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, as determined under subsection (6); except in the case of a victim who is claiming a loss of unemployment insurance benefits, where the only deduction shall be the income tax payable as determined under subsection (3). Taxable income is GYEI less deductions 10(2) For the purpose of this regulation, a victim s taxable income is the gross yearly employment income of the victim determined under this regulation less the following: (a) any amount allowable to the victim under clauses 60(b), (c) and (c.2) (maintenance) of the Income Tax Act (Canada), in the calendar year before the year for which the taxable income is calculated; and
17 17 (b) any amount of the gross yearly employment income that would have been exempt from the victim s income tax under clause 81(1)(a) (statutory exemptions) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) as that clause was at the time of the accident. Income tax is tax on taxable income less credits 10(3) For the purpose of this regulation, the income tax payable by a victim is the tax payable upon the taxable income of the victim calculated in accordance with the Income Tax Act (Canada) and The Income Tax Act of Manitoba, and allowing only the following credits: (a) the credit allowed under section of the Income Tax Act (Canada), where B in the formula set out in that section is the total of (i) the premiums payable for unemployment insurance, as determined under subsection (5) of this section, and (ii) the contributions payable in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, as determined under subsection (6) of this section; (b) the credits allowed in subsections 118(1) (personal credits) and (2) (age credit) of the Income Tax Act (Canada), without any reduction in the credits in respect of the income of a dependant referred to in section 113 of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act; (c) any credit or deduction from tax allowed under The Income Tax Act of Manitoba, except under subsection 5(5) (deductions for property taxes) of that Act, without any reduction in the credit or deduction in respect of the income of a dependant referred to in section 113 of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act. GYEI is pensionable and insurable earnings 10(4) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), the gross yearly employment income of a victim, as determined under this regulation, are the pensionable earnings of the victim for the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan, and the insurable earnings of the victim for the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Canada), not derived from self employment. Premiums payable under Unemployment Insurance Act 10(5) For the purpose of this regulation, the premiums payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Canada) are the amounts payable by the victim as an employee's premium for the year under that Act in respect of the victim's insurable earnings, not exceeding the maximum amount payable by him or her for the year under that Act. Contributions payable under Canada Pension Plan 10(6) For the purpose of this regulation, the contributions payable under the Canada Pension Plan are the amounts payable by the victim as an employee's contribution for the year under the Canada Pension Plan in respect of the victim's pensionable earnings, not exceeding the maximum amount by him or her for the year under the plan.
18 18 The panel finds that MPIC has properly applied the appropriate sections of the MPIC Act and Regulations in calculating deductions for CPP, EI and Income Tax from the Appellant s IRI benefit entitlement. However, as noted above in regard to interest calculations, since the Appellant s IRI benefits will be recalculated, the notional deductions made in connection with these amounts will also have to be recalculated. As a result, in order to resolve any confusion which may result in regard to the calculation of notional deductions for CPP, EI and Income Tax and of interest in these future determinations, the panel finds that MPIC should provide detailed calculations to the Appellant which will show and explain how MPIC arrived at the amounts. Other Issues: The Appellant also submitted that MPIC had failed to fully investigate the potential employment she might have held and the amounts she might have earned, as well as improperly calculated any amounts that she did earn following the motor vehicle accident. The issues which she pointed to included: 1. Kit Rental The Appellant indicated that part of any job included, on top of wages, an amount for kit rental, which included the requirement for the Appellant to provide items such as a cell phone, laptop, camera, and software. She noted that MPIC s IRI calculator had failed to include such amounts when calculating GYEI for her promised employment with, for example, [text deleted].
19 19 Counsel for MPIC noted that it was not possible to determine from the material provided in the Appellant s indexed file whether or not this had been taken into account by the IRI calculator. She suggested that this question could also be referred back to the IRI calculator for consideration and determination. The panel agrees with counsel for MPIC that there is insufficient evidence or information on the Appellant s indexed file to determine whether kit rental was properly considered in MPIC s calculations of IRI entitlement. This could impact IRI calculations for both the first 180 days, and the period from the 181 st day. Accordingly, the panel will refer this issue back to the IRI calculator for investigation and consideration. 2. Seniority The Appellant submitted that her IRI benefits were not properly calculated, as the amounts used for income calculation were based upon the amounts received by a casual worker who ultimately filled the positions. This casual worker did not hold the same high seniority that the Appellant held within her unions and as such was not entitled to as high a rate of payment for work performed. Counsel for MPIC indicated that MPIC relied, in this regard, upon information received from the Appellant s business agent. However, she offered to ask the IRI calculator to investigate this issue in the recalculation process. Accordingly, the panel will refer this issue back to the IRI calculator for investigation and consideration.
20 20 3. Part-time Earnings The Appellant submitted that in calculating other income she received after the motor vehicle accident, MPIC had attributed inflated amounts to her earnings. She argued that deductions for these part-time amounts earned were, in many instances, higher than the IRI amounts attributed to her. Counsel for MPIC indicated that this issue was another area which warranted further examination by MPIC, as the documentation provided on the Appellant s indexed file did not provide a clear explanation of how the figures regarding the part-time employments were determined. Accordingly, the Commission will refer the issue of calculation of amounts earned by the Appellant from part-time employment back to the IRI calculator for investigation and consideration. 4. Prospective Employment The Appellant submitted that MPIC failed to properly investigate and determine the prospective employment she would have held had the accident not occurred. The Appellant submitted that she had never worked at [text deleted] or at [text deleted]. She pointed to various employments, such as the [text deleted], which she would have more likely held, than the employments identified by the IRI calculator. Counsel for MPIC submitted that the prospective employments considered by the IRI calculator were based upon information obtained from the Appellant s business agent and that the Appellant had failed to provide any further information to contradict this.
21 21 Counsel for the Appellant submitted that MPIC could not be responsible for what the business agent may have missed and that they simply take the information provided in order to make their determinations. If there were inaccuracies within the information, counsel for MPIC suggested that the onus was upon the Appellant to contact the business agent and arrange to have MPIC provided with the correct information. The panel finds that the Appellant failed to provide any evidence to show that there was prospective employment, other than those already considered by the IRI calculator, which should have been considered. Accordingly, the panel finds the Appellant has failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that MPIC did not consider the appropriate prospective employment when calculating her IRI benefit entitlement. 5. Investigation with unions The Appellant indicated that, at the time of the motor vehicle accident she was a member of three different unions which facilitated her access to employment in the field of motion pictures, broadcasting and performing arts. The Appellant submitted that MPIC had erred when it contacted only one of these unions to investigate the Appellant s employment and earnings potential. Counsel for MPIC indicated that as the materials on the Appellant s indexed file did not indicate whether or not these additional unions were contacted, this would be an appropriate issue to be clarified at the case management and IRI calculation level.
22 22 Accordingly, the Commission will refer the issue of investigation of all three unions through which the Appellant arranged employment to the Appellant s case manager and IRI calculator for investigation and consideration. Summary: As a result, the calculation of the Appellant s IRI benefits as a temporary earner between April 21, 2008 and April 15, 2009 and between April 16, 2009 and September 30, 2010 will be referred back to the case manager and IRI calculator for recalculation, along with the issues of her kit rental, seniority, part-time earnings, and investigation with the Appellant s unions. Recalculation of notional deductions for CPP, EI and Income Tax benefits, as well as interest calculations, will then be made regarding the new IRI benefit calculations. The Appellant s appeals will be upheld in this regard and the Internal Review Decisions of January 25, 2011 and June 7, 2011 will be varied accordingly. Dated at Winnipeg this 12 th day of December, LAURA DIAMOND LINDA NEWTON WENDY SOL
Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal by [The Appellant] AICAC File Nos.: AC-10-177, AC-11-017, AC-12-003 PANEL: APPEARANCES: Ms Yvonne Tavares, Chairperson Ms Pat
Discussion Paper Concerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries Office of the Superintendent of Insurance January, 2010 Introduction The Province of Nova Scotia regulates automobile
1 INSURANCE (INJURY) A-35 REG 5 The Automobile Accident Insurance (Injury) Regulations being Chapter A-35 Reg 5 (effective January 1, 2003) as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations 71/2007 and 77/2007. NOTE:
ARTICLE 13: INCOME PROTECTION Also refer to Article 31 Special Provisions re. Part-time Employees. 1301 An employee who is absent from scheduled work due to illness, disability, quarantine or because of
CALCULATING AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE UNDER ILLINOIS WC LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF SEC. 10 OF THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 2004 Michael E. Rusin Rusin Maciorowski & Friedman, Ltd. 10 South Riverside Plaza,
1 The Personal Injury Benefits Regulations being Chapter A-35 Reg 3 (effective January 1, 1995) as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations 70/2002, 121/2002, 48/2004, 73/2007, 79/2007, 127/2010, 43/2014 and
Province of Alberta FAMILY LAW ACT ALBERTA CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES Alberta Regulation 147/2005 With amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 153/2009 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta
1 LTD (Long Term Disability Plan) 2.1 Eligibility (a) (1) Regular full-time employees shall be covered by the Long Term Disability Plan upon completion of six months active employment with the Employer.
Citation: M. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2014 SSTGDEI 7 Appeal No: GE-13-1775 BETWEEN: M. M. Appellant Claimant and Canada Employment Insurance Commission Respondent SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL
WCAT Decision Number: WCAT-2015-02919 WCAT Decision Date: September 23, 2015 Panel: Joanne Kembel, Vice Chair Introduction  This is a referral to the chair of the (WCAT) under section 251 of the Workers
Have you or someone you know suffered a personal injury? TIPS TO MAXIMIZE COMPENSATION If you have suffered a personal injury it is important to consider all potential sources of compensation. A personal
Average Weekly Wage Presented by: Dan Schmelling & Denise Williams Workers Compensation Division Average Weekly Wage/ Audit Process We are here to help you determine and calculate the worker s weekly wage,
Public Employees Benefits Agency Public Employees Disability Income Plan Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...4 Overview Administration Employee Booklet ELIGIBILITY...5 Employer Responsibility Enrolment BENEFITS...7
IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 668. AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: STATE
of Workers Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions JURISDICTION: SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT Population Size Labour Force Demographic and Economic Indicators 1,015,600 (1995, Stats Canada) 494,000 (1995,
2008 PA Super 38 LINDA J. FAUST IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL WALKER, Appellee APPEAL OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE OF THE DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No. 1166 MDA 2007 Appeal
[TRANSLATION] Citation: K. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2014 SSTGDEI 101 Appeal No: GE-14-945 BETWEEN: K. B. Appellant and Canada Employment Insurance Commission Respondent SOCIAL SECURITY
PREAMBLE The SGEU Long Term Disability Plan (hereafter may be referred to as the Plan) is fully funded by contributions from Plan Members. The cost to you is a percentage of your gross salary, which is
EMPLOYMENT COURT AWARDS FOR LOST WAGES OR OTHER REMUNERATION - EMPLOYERS LIABILITY TO MAKE TAX DEDUCTIONS PUBLIC RULING BR Pub 01/06 Note (not part of ruling): This ruling replaces Public Rulings BR Pub
Province of Alberta PROVINCIAL COURT ACT COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH ACT PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES AND MASTERS IN CHAMBERS COMPENSATION REGULATION Alberta Regulation 176/1998 With amendments up to and including
Payment of wages Pay & Wages Series What hourly rate should I be paid? Your hourly wage rate depends on factors such as the industry or sector you are in, your occupation and contract of employment. Pay
Employment Insurance Guide for Employers EI Premium Reduction Program Service Canada Government of Canada Gouvernement du Canada IN-041-05-06 For further information on the Employment Insurance Premium
Short-Term Disability Pay Policy for Hourly & Commissioned Associates POLICY DESCRIPTION Effective March 1, 2014 Effective March 1, 2014, Updated November 26, 2013 1 of 15 Table of Contents Table of Contents...
Comparative Analysis of Workers Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions JURISDICTION: MANITOBA ENVIRONMENT Population Size Labour Force Demographic and Economic Indicators 1,144,000 (1996 Stats Canada)
Compensation kit What you need to know humanservices.gov.au 2 Compensation kit Contents What you need to know...4 Compensation and social security law: an overview...5 What is compensation?...5 What Centrelink
CITY OF PORTLAND HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE RULES LEAVES Purpose The purpose of this Administrative Rule is to provide additional benefits to eligible employees with accepted workers compensation claims.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1043 September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS v. GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, McAuliffe, John F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned),
WORKERS GUIDE YUKON WORKERS COMPENSATION HEALTH AND SAFETY BOARD working together WITH YUKON WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS workers compensation WORKERS COMPENSATION Workers compensation is an employer-funded insurance
Division of Workers' Compensation BENEFIT NOTICE INSTRUCTION MANUAL Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Sections 9810 through 9815 (Revisions effective January 1, 2016) January 2016 CONTENTS English
Nebraska Workers Compensation Court Information Sheet: Rights & Obligations under the Nebraska Workers Compensation Law NEBRASKA WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OFFICIAL SEAL What is workers compensation? Workers
CHAPTER 7 - BENEFITS Section 1. (a) Awards of Compensation. Computation of Disability Awards. (i) Procedure for Determining Temporary Total Disability(TTD). (A) Temporary wage rate is computed as follows:
1 STIIP (Short Term Illness and Injury Plan) 1.1 Eligibility (a) Regular employees shall be covered by the Short Term Illness and Injury Plan upon completion of six months active service with the Employer.
A Guide to Settlement Agreements Please contact us to discuss your Settlement Agreement in more detail. Whether you are an Employer or an Employee we shall be delighted to help with your Settlement Agreement.
Tax Memo Our PEO Company ( BCC ) has developed a professional employer organization ( PEO ) program to provide lower cost health insurance, and other benefits, to small businesses and self-employed individuals.
Workers' Compensation Workers compensation provides benefits to injured employees for accidents or occupational diseases arising out of, and in the course of, their employment. Compensation coverage is
Florida Child Support Worksheet and Guidelines Florida Statute (s. 61.30, F.S.) requires guidelines to be used in establishing new child support obligations or modifying child support in a Florida court.
Group Income Protection Insurance Policy GIPPOL(EMPLOYEE)/04/2008 GROUP INCOME PROTECTION INSURANCE POLICY This policy is issued by Unum Limited (called Unum in this policy) to the policyholder named in
1 Early Retirement and Redundancy Compensation Policy 1. Introduction Mansfield District Council recognises the need to manage redundancy and early retirements in a fair and transparent way, particularly
New South Wales Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012 under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the
BULLETIN NO. HE 002 Issued June 2000 Revised August 2014 THE HEALTH AND POST SECONDARY EDUCATION TAX LEVY ACT REMUNERATION This bulletin will help employers understand what kind of payments, made to or
[05.05.19] Payments on Termination of an Office or Employment or a Change in its Functions Contents Sections 123 and 201, and Schedule 3 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 Updated April 2014 1. Introduction...3
protecting you and your family Insurance guide Effective 1 July 2015 Issued by CSF Pty Limited ABN 30 006 169 286, AFSL 246664, Trustee of the MyLifeMyMoney Superannuation Fund ABN 50 237 896 957 mylifemyinsurance.com.au
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other
WORKPLACE INJURY INSURANCE: Worker s Handbook A GUIDE TO YOUR WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE The following information is provided as a basic guide to your Workers Compensation Insurance. For more complete
.25 Schedule of [Attorneys'] Attorney's Fees. A. The Commission shall approve [attorneys'] attorney's fees in accordance with the schedule of fees established from time to time by the Commission and set
On April 18, 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a new law changing the workers compensation system. (H.B. 2134) amends the Workers Compensation Act (KSA Sec. 44-501, et seq.) by changing Sections
4th SESSION, 64th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 63 ELIZABETH II, 2014 CHAPTER 36 (Bill No. 46) An Act to Amend the Insurance Act (No. 2) Honourable Janice A. Sherry Minister of Environment,
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COURT AT SUVA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CASE NUMBER: ERCA NO. 09 OF 2012 BETWEEN: AUTOMART LIMITED APPELLANT AND: WAQA ROKOTUINASAU RESPONDENT Appearances: Ms. Drova for the Appellant.
A summary of the Collective Labour Agreement for Temporary Agency Workers 2009 2014 July 2010 issue Table of contents Legal status: the phase system 2 Phase A 2 Phase B 3 Phase C 5 Remuneration 7 Illness
Main Terms and Conditions Nursery Staff Revised to align with changes following the review of Governance Changes agreed with UNISON and UNITE: effective 1 st September 2010 1. Continuous Service a) Unless
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 4th SESSION, 64th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 63 ELIZABETH II, 2014 BILL NO. 46 An Act to Amend the Insurance Act (No. 2) Honourable Janice A.
Missouri Business Taxes Missouri Taxes During the last three decades, one key factor in keeping the cost of doing business in Missouri low has been our ability to ensure that our state and local tax burden
NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY Decision: WCAT-2005-02255-RB Panel: Rob Kyle Decision Date: April 29, 2005 Is Worker Occupation a Factor to Consider when Calculating Functional Impairment Permanent Disability
POLICY STATEMENT The Workers Safety and Compensation Commission (WSCC) provides monthly pension payments to workers with a permanent disability resulting from a work-related injury or disease. In the case
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Construction of Statute Definition of Injury (Causation) Revises Section 50-6-116, Construction of Chapter, to indicate that for dates of injury on or after July 1, 2014, the chapter should no longer
Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) This agreement is a binding legal contract between you and your solicitor/s. Before you sign, please read everything carefully. This agreement must be read in conjunction
PAYE / PRSI for Small Employers A Revenue Guide Contents Introduction 2 THE PAYE & PRSI System 3 Tax Credit System 4 Pay, Holiday Pay and Expenses 6 Treatment of Benefits 7 Taxation of Social Welfare Payments
Interpretive Bulletins Director s interpretations of issues impacting the Colorado workers compensation system In an effort to provide guidance on the practical applications of the Colorado Workers Compensation
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Employment Insurance Regular Benefits This document can be made available in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, audio cassette, CD, DAISY, and computer diskette. Call
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA 1601 CHESTNUT STREET GROUP POLICY PHILADELPHIA, PA 19192-2235 (800) 732-1603 TDD (800) 552-5744 A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY POLICYHOLDER: POLICY NUMBER: The Hospital
A.B. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR MARCH, 0 Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor SUMMARY Revises provisions governing workers compensation. (BDR -) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local
Notice to readers regarding accessibility: This document meets the requirements of the Québec government standard for Web accessibility SGQRI 008-02 and is accessible to people with disabilities. All notices
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2013 No. 1981 COMPANIES The Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 Made - - - - 6th August 2013 Coming into
VOTE Accident Insurance B.5 Vol.I 1 Accident Insurance Overview Appropriations sought for Vote Accident Insurance in 2000/01 total $490.701 million. This is intended to be spent as follows: $3.438 million
Short-Term Disability Pay Policy for Hourly & Commissioned Associates POLICY DESCRIPTION Effective March 1, 2016 Effective March 1, 2016, Updated March 2, 2016 1 of 14 Table of Contents Table of Contents...
INSURANCE FACTS for Pennsylvania Consumers Your Guide to Workers Compensation Insurance 1-877-881-6388 Toll-free Automated Consumer Line www.insurance.pa.gov Pennsylvania Insurance Department Website Introduction
LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS Revised September 1, 2004 No. 6 (*) 7000CI-U-EZ E O BENEFIT INFORMATION WHY LONG-TERM DISABILITY COVERAGE People tend to take their good health and ability to work for granted.
Information about the 2015/16 levy rates for Levy Risk Group 701: Computer services Computer systems design and related services Contents Introduction... 4 The levy setting process... 4 About this document...
Missouri Business Taxes Missouri Taxes During the last three decades, one key factor in keeping the cost of doing business in Missouri low has been our ability to ensure that our state and local tax burden
Worker s Handbook A guide to your workers compensation insurance Nova Scotians safe and secure from workplace injury Your Worker s Handbook at a glance Your care comes first: health care benefits.... 2
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY JERRY CROUSE : Appellant, : C.A. No. S14A-12-002 RFS : v. : : HY-POINT DAIRY FARMS, INC. : Appellee. : Submitted: April 7, 2015 Decided:
VOTE Accident Insurance B.5 Vol.I 1 Accident Insurance Overview Appropriations sought for Vote Accident Insurance in 2001/02 total $735.218 million. This is intended to be spent as follows: $3.438 million
Your Retirement Plan Coordinated Plan For ERS Tier 3 and 4 Members (Articles 14 and 15) New York State Office of the State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli New York State and Local Employees Retirement System
Page 1 Case Name: Unite Here Local 40 v. Compass Group Canada (Morrison) (Nanaimo Seniors Centre) (Stauffer Grievance) Labour Relations Code (Section 84 Appointment) Between Unite Here, Local 40, Union,