| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Board's and Umpire's reasons indicate that they simply inferred from the facts that claimant could not honestly believe that he was not working. Was this inference legally warranted? Under the circumstances (several factors considered), we have no doubt that the inference was justified.
Although the Umpire did not expressly indicate that he was looking for evidence of an intention, on reading his reasons as a whole it becomes clear that at no time did he forget that a subjective knowledge of the falsehood on the part of the speaker was crucial.
