| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
Special warrants - Direct deposit |
|
Summary:
In its representations before the FCA, the Commission conceded that the penalties applied under s. 38(1)(a) of the EIA should not have been imposed and that pénalties imposed under s. 38(1)(e) of the EIA should be reduced by half since benefits were deposited every second week into the claimant's bank account. The FCA cited subsection 77(2) of the EIA that requires that no benefits can be paid without a special warrant being drawn on the Receiver General. Since the claimant received benefits in this case, the FCA concluded that it was not open to the Umpire to hold that there were no special warrants. The FCA then concluded that the Umpire had made no error when he held that infractions based on the allegation that the claimant made misrepresentations by reference to direct deposits had not been establish before the BOR. In particular, the FCA is of the view that the direct deposit of benefits into the claimant's account cannot, in and of themselves, under any logic, allow for the conclusion that the claimant comes within the four corners of par. 38(1)(e) of the EIA.
