Craigwood Collective Agreement
 In his letter of appeal, the Claimant stated that he had not received any revenue. He said that during the mediation process with the employer, he received a sum of money to waive his rights under his collective agreement. He said that this money was not a salary or money earned because he did not work for these funds and they would be given to him instead of his rights. He said that once the verification process was completed, his overpayment was greater and his delivery time was not extended.  On November 18, 2012, the Claimant made his first claim for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The complainant worked until November 15, 2012 for Craigwood Youth Services and was dismissed. The employer submitted to the Claimant an amended employment protocol which states that the transaction indemnity of USD 14,500.00 was paid “in lieu of the loss of the right to rehire”. The Canada Employment Commission (Commission) awarded the settlement allowances in accordance with Subsection 35(2) and Article 36(9) of the EI Regulations. The applicant requested a review of the Commission`s decision. The Commission stated that the claimant`s compensation should be allocated from the date of signature of the agreement, i.e. 27 May 2013, and not from the last working day. The applicant appealed to the Social Security Court. The new Ontario Association of Children`s Mental Health Centres was founded in 1979.
Craigwood was one of the founding members. A new agreement brought the Craigwood curriculum under the Middlesex County Board of Education.  The Claimant submitted the “Notice of Settlement” (Appendices GD3-19 to GD3-22). In the agreement, the claimant waived his “right to rehire” against payment of USD 14,500.00 by the employer. The applicant applied with effect from 15 November 2012 as a permanent licensee. The agreement was signed on 27 May 2013.  On October 17, 2013, the Commission met with the Claimant and indicated that the severance payments he had received for the waiver of the restoration of his previous position had been paid (as indicated in the minutes of settlement he submitted). The Commission also stated that the claimant`s settlement compensation should have been affected from the date of signature of the contract, i.e. 27 May 2013, and not from the last working day.
 During the hearing, the Tribunal and the Claimant were separated after approximately five minutes. The court and the complainant then rejoined the conference call. The complainant said that after being fired by the employer, everyone intended to resolve the situation. The Grievor confirmed that it had signed the “Transaction Protocol” set out in Appendices GD3-19 to GD3-22. He also confirmed that he gave up his “right to reinstatement” in exchange for the employer`s payment of $14,500.00. He said he received a cheque from the employer (about two weeks later) for $10,500.00. He says he inquired with his union about this amount and then received a refund of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Employment Insurance (EI) premiums that were accidentally deducted from his cheque. The complainant stated that he had never received the 41.03 $US mentioned in the overtime agreement. He also says he never received any travel or lunch money from his union for the day the arbitration with the employer took place. The Claimant stated that the funds he received from the employer to waive his redeployment rights were not severance pay or vacation pay. He said he had tried to resolve the issues with the employer and was ready to return to work. He challenged the Commission`s description of the employer`s lump sum as severance pay or leave.
He questioned the “structural” method used by the Commission to allocate funds. He replied that the employer`s lump sum payment was favourable to the waiver of his reintegration rights and that these funds were not revenue. . . .