Citation: 2003TCC702

Date: 20031110

Docket: 2003-134(EI)

BETWEEN:

ZORA SINGH SOHI,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

For the Appellant: The Appellant himself

Counsel for the Respondent: Antonia Paraherakis

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered orally from the Bench on

May 26, 2003, at Montreal, Quebec)

McArthur J.

[1]      The issue before me is whether the Appellant is deemed to have received insurable earnings of $17,528 in the year 2001 notwithstanding that his insurable employment was in 2000. The Appellant was an engineer for Pratt & Whitney Canada and his employment was insurable under the Act. He retired from work on or before December 31, 2000 and did not work in any manner whatsoever for Pratt & Whitney after that date. His last period of pay was from December 18 to December 31, 2000.

[2]      On January 11, 2001, the Appellant's employer paid him salary, overtime and vacation pay which totalled $17,528 and approximately $12,000 of that amount was for vacation pay. The Appellant's frustration is that Pratt & Whitney should have paid that amount to him in the taxation year 2000. He presented a bundle of documents that have been filed as Exhibit A-1 and which include a letter from Pratt & Whitney addressed to him and dated April 15, 2002, which acknowledges his position and states:

As you mention, a bureaucratic error occurred and your final payments (including owed vacations) were made in the first of 2001 instead of the last pay of 2000 as had been agreed between yourself and Gilles Ouellette. The lump sum amount, as per the Severance Package Agreement, was also paid in the first pay period in 2001, as had been agreed.

[3]      I am asked by the Minister of National Revenue to apply section 70 of the Act which reads:

70         If insurable earnings are paid to a person after the end of the year in which their insurable employment occurred, the insurable employment is, for the purposes of determining insurable earnings and premiums payable, deemed to have occurred in the year in which the insurable earnings are paid.

[4]      The Appellant finds himself clearly within the language of that section. The payment to him was made in 2001 and section 70 deems that the premiums under the Act to have occurred in the year in which the insurable earnings were paid. The amount of the employment insurance premium we are dealing with is $386. As I explained to the Appellant, this Court is not a Court of equity and my obligation is to apply the law as it is written and I cannot change the legislation. Section 70 is clear and the Appellant, without doubt, falls within the meaning of that section. His recourse is not against Canada Customs and Revenue Agency with respect to the $386. If he has any recourse, as I understand it, it is with respect to his former employer, Pratt & Whitney.

[5]      For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of November, 2003.

"C.H. McArthur"

J.T.C.C.

CITATION:

2003TCC702

COURT FILE NO.:

2003-134(EI)

STYLE OF CAUSE:

Zora Singh Sohi and Her Majesty the Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:

Montreal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:

May 26, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

The Honourable Justice C.H. McArthur

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

June 2, 2003

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

The Appellant himself

Counsel for the Respondent:

Antoinio Paraherakis

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Appellant:

Name:

N/A

Firm:

N/A

For the Respondent:

Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada