Decision A-0316.04
Full Text of Decision A-0316.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission imposed a penalty based on five false statements made by the claimant with regard to undeclared earnings. The Umpire determined that the false statements should be treated as one continuous violation rather than five. The Federal Court concluded that there were five violations and restored the decision of the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0350.03
Full Text of Decision A-0350.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Umpire had not made his decision in a perverse or capricious manner and concluded that the penalty imposed by the Commission was not unreasonable based on the facts as stated by the BOR and the Umpire.
Decision 60338
Full Text of Decision 60338
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0316.04
Decision A-0034.03
Full Text of Decision A-0034.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Court reiterates that the Commission's practice of going by guidelines (100%, 200%, 300%) is completely legal and appropriate; and that criminal rules do not apply to administrative penalties.
Decision A-292.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Court dismissed the application for judicial review (see summaries of the Sonia Dion and other cases indexed under A-0251.02 and CUB 53724), except on the issue of penalties where the Court found that the Board of Referees had rightly reduced each penalty to 50% of benefit rate. The Court upholds the discretionary authority of the Commission to impose a penalty, but the Board finds that the Commission exercised its discretion in a non-judicial manner and the Umpire had no grounds to intervene.
Decision A-0251.02
Full Text of Decision A-0251.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA stated that it was satisfied the Umpire had committed no error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 55835
Full Text of Decision 55835
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0034.03
Decision 53724
Full Text of Decision 53724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant failed to provide some information about her interruption of earnings. The Umpire upholds the discretionary authority of the Commission to impose a penalty and states that the evidence submitted to the Board of Referees indicates that the Commission has fulfilled its duties in this matter. See summary of the FCA decision, indexed under A-0251.02.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
applicability |
|
|
Decision 46081
Full Text of Decision 46081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty of $21,063 (17 false statements X 3 times the benefit rate established at $413) imposed for issuance of false Records of Employment. The BOR, without explanation, held that one time the rate was sufficient. Error of law according to the Umpire. The BOR substituted its discretion for that of the Commission without establishing that the Commission had not exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and had acted arbitrarily, without any basis in established fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
imposed to employer |
|
|
Decision A-0181.98
Full Text of Decision A-0181.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0186.98
Full Text of Decision A-0186.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Should an administrative penalty be proportional to the penalty assessed against the employer in criminal proceedings? Not according to the FCA, for various reasons: administrative delays, the effect of a very punitive criminal sanction in undesirably increasing the administrative penalty, difficulty in quantifying the stigma of a criminal conviction. The FCA also notes, referring to C. Lai (A-525-97), that it is not desirable to import principles applicable to the criminal context into the administrative context.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0184.98
Full Text of Decision A-0184.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0182.98
Full Text of Decision A-0182.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0180.98
Full Text of Decision A-0180.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0525.97
Full Text of Decision A-0525.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Decision 40390
Full Text of Decision 40390
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 40387
Full Text of Decision 40387
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 40389
Full Text of Decision 40389
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 40384
Full Text of Decision 40384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0681.96
Full Text of Decision A-0681.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Court, relying on the definition of extenuating circumstances given in a manual of the Commission [topic 21 of the Insurance Services Policy Manual, in lieu of chapter 18 of the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles], ruled that the Commission had unduly limited its discretionary power. The FCA further stated that all factors existing prior to or at the time of the imposition of a penalty and of a nature to affect the rightness of the penalty are relevant to the establishment of it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 37891
Full Text of Decision 37891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0525.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0464.96
Full Text of Decision A-0464.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty of $4,536 was reduced to $18 by the Board of Referees, which cited the claimant’s precarious financial position. This decision was reversed by the Umpire, who found that the BOR had no jurisdiction to vary the amount of the penalty. This decision was set aside by the FCA, which referred the matter back to the Umpire for him to determine whether, given the claimant’s financial position, the BOR had judicially exercised its discretionary power in cancelling, for all practical purposes, the penalty imposed by the Commission. The FCA reminded the Umpire that a BOR should not cancel a penalty or reduce it to a token amount unless the circumstances are exceptional. **NOTE: In a subsequent decision (CUB 33564A), the Umpire took into consideration certain extenuating circumstances that had not been present initially, and reduced the penalty by half (from $4,536 to $2.268). This decision was not deemed to be unreasonable by the Commission, and no appeal was made to the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 28352A
Full Text of Decision 28352A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty of $1,536.00 reduced to $400.00 by the BOR. Appeal filed by the Commission: the BOR failed to sufficiently identify an error in the Commission's exercise of discretion. Held by Umpire that new evidence submitted by claimant to the BOR and penalty properly reduced. Extensive review of the most recent FCA's decisions on the issue of penalty: Purcell, Morin and Dunham.
Decision A-0708.95
Full Text of Decision A-0708.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
In order to authorize his intervention, the Umpire cited the existence of a policy of the Commission that allegedly had the effect of preventing the officer responsible from evaluating all the circumstances. The FCA first noted that this policy was not before it, and added that there was no reason to think that this policy was more constraining than several others whose aim is to guide, not to constrain, and whose object is to ensure a certain consistency in the decisions made by the host of public servants called upon to deal with particular cases on a daily basis. These are internal policies that the sound administration of a public agency not only allows, but requires.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 28068A
Full Text of Decision 28068A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0681.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 29211
Full Text of Decision 29211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0708.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 25742
Full Text of Decision 25742
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's rate of benefit was $304 per week. Falsification of report cards occurred in 19 separate instances. The Commission had the discretion to impose a penalty of up to 3 times the weekly rate of benefit (3 X $304 = $912) for each of the 19 claims (19 X $912 = $17,328). Penalty imposed: $5,776.
Decision 22527
Full Text of Decision 22527
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0330.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0330.93
Full Text of Decision A-0330.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
A claim for benefit in ss. 33(1) is different from an initial claim. The falsification of claimant's report card occurred in 6 separate instances, therefore 6 separate claims. The Commission had the discretion to impose a penalty of up to 3 times the rate of benefit for each of the 6 claims.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 18053
Full Text of Decision 18053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
With respect to claimant's suggestion that the penalty assessed was above what is allowed by the Act (3 times the weekly benefit rate) I would note that that penalty can be assessed for "each" false statement made. Penalty imposed: $1160. Maximum allowed: $290 x 3 x 16 = $13,920.
Decision 14283
Full Text of Decision 14283
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Under 47(1) the Commission could have imposed a penalty of $2520, i.e. weekly rate of $120 x 3 times x 7 false statements. The claimant may be less insistent that the penalty of $420 is too high if he is aware of how high it could be.
Decision 13796
Full Text of Decision 13796
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Overpayment:$866; penalty: $534$. Excessive according to claimant. Penalty under s.47 in no way connected to overpayment. Penalty may be up to 3 times the weekly rate for each false statement. Here it constituted 3/4 of the rate. Not unreasonable.
Decision 13632
Full Text of Decision 13632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's weekly rate of benefit was $173. At 3 times his weekly rate, the maximum penalty that could have been levied for 6 false statements was over $3000. At $779 he is being fined very minimally for deliberately misleading the Commission.
Decision 13298
Full Text of Decision 13298
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The scale of penalty allowed is up to 3 times the rate of benefit. The Commission's decision was to impose a penalty of one-half, a summary disposition which should be of some consolation to the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 12722
Full Text of Decision 12722
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
Weekly rate of $208; one false statement; overpayment: $57; penalty: $104. Failed to report work and earnings of $109. Claimant argues penalty unjust for one mistake. That may be so, but the law allows 3 times the weekly rate. A 50%-penalty appears to be fair.
Decision 12620
Full Text of Decision 12620
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission may impose a penalty not greater than 3 times the weekly rate. Here, the penalty was 1/2 of the rate for each [of the 10 false] statements. It would appear that any extenuating circumstances have already been taken into account.
Decision 11126
Full Text of Decision 11126
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
S.47 provides for a penalty not greater than 3 times claimant's weekly rate of benefit. Here, the penalty was one half of the rate for each statement. Accordingly, I am satisfied that any extenuating circumstances have been considered.
Decision 11058
Full Text of Decision 11058
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission cannot investigate in depth all claimant cases to make sure that claimant duties are observed, no more than highway patrol officers can eliminate all excessive speeding on our roadways. Penalities for breach must be severe.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 10811
Full Text of Decision 10811
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The issue is whether the penalty of $196 was excessive. S.47 provides for penalties up to 3 times the rate of benefit. No doubt that because of the 4 weeks for which claimant received benefits and knowingly made false statements, the penalty does not appear excessive.
Decision A0504.06
Full Text of Decision A0504.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
This case deals with a reduction of a penalty by an Umpire who did so in light of the need for its "repayment" and the co-operative conduct of the claimant. The Court has repeatedly held that mitigating circumstances are those present before or at the time the penalty is imposed. Repayment is something that occurs after the imposition of the penalty. Admission of guilty conduct upon being confronted with offence by the Commission is not a mitigating factor.
Decision A-0251.05
Full Text of Decision A-0251.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Commission had reduced the amount of penalties imposed on the claimant, having considered certain aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court determined that the Commission had shown understanding and compassion but also stated that the Commission had to consider not to undermine the specific and general deterrent effect intended by Parliament. The Court added that, although the claimant's financial hardship or ability to pay may be factors to consider in setting the amount of a penalty, the claimant's willingness to pay the penalty is not. The Court further indicated that the Commission is under no obligation to provide an exhaustive list of all the factors considered in calculating the penalty amount.
Decision 63337
Full Text of Decision 63337
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0251.05
Decision A-0052.04
Full Text of Decision A-0052.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Court reiterated that the Commission's practice of establishing guidelines (100%, 200%, 300%) for the imposition of penalties, in order to ensure coherence on a national basis, is totally appropriate. The Court added that this policy should not be applied automatically and that the Commission must exercise its discretion and take into account the special circumstances of the claimant.
Decision A-0578.02
Full Text of Decision A-0578.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Court stated that when a claimant brings forward claims of inability to pay or financial hardship, the Commission or the BOR are required to consider whether these claims are mitigating factors that would merit a reduction of the penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0046.03
Full Text of Decision A-0046.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Court stated that when a claimant brings forward claims of inability to pay or financial hardship, the Commission or the BOR are required to consider whether these claims are mitigating factors that would merit a reduction of the penalty. The Court found that the BOR had failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by not concluding on the financial hardship argument of the claimant.
Decision A-0045.03
Full Text of Decision A-0045.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Court stated that when a claimant brings forward claims of inability to pay or financial hardship, the Commission or the BOR are required to consider whether these claims are mitigating factors that would merit a reduction of the penalty.
Decision 59321
Full Text of Decision 59321
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0052.04
Decision 55881
Full Text of Decision 55881
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0045.03
Decision 55884
Full Text of Decision 55884
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0046.03
Decision 55245
Full Text of Decision 55245
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
It is not enough for the agent to say that the Commission took into account all relevant factors and did not take into account all irrelevant factors. What appears apparent is that the agent adopted the usual practice of imposing an automatic 100% penalty for a first offence. This is not a reason that meets judicial standards: it is an arbitrary decision.
Decision 55608
Full Text of Decision 55608
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0578.02
Decision A-0353.01
Full Text of Decision A-0353.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
A penalty imposed by the Commission that is reduced to zero by the Board of Referees amounts to no penalty at all and, in reality, is a usurpation of power that resides exclusively in the Commission under the legislation. Where, however, mitigating circumstances are shown to the BOR, the Board may reduce the quantum of the penalty to an amount that it considers commensurate with those circumstances. Reference made to the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0715.95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51357
Full Text of Decision 51357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0353.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 51150
Full Text of Decision 51150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant concerned that if she did not play along with the scheme (banking of hours) being used by the employer that she may lose her job. Not a good reason for her to continue but a mitigating factor which can explain why she did it. Such an influence on the claimant was sufficient to cause her to do things that she would not have normally done. Penalty reduced by one-third.
Decision A-0549.99
Full Text of Decision A-0549.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty initially imposed at $3,345 but reduced by the Commission to $1,410 in light of the claimant's stress due to the breakup of her marriage and her financial difficulties. Umpire held that the penalty was based on a percentage formula which is not the exercise of a judicial discretion and further reduced the penalty to $750. Decision reversed by the FCA which ruled that the Commission had considered the particular circumstances of the applicant and that there was not an unreasonable exercise by the Commission of its discretionary power to impose a penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0387.99
Full Text of Decision A-0387.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Umpire had arbitrarily reduced the penalty from 100% to 25%. The FCA held that the Umpire gave no reasons to indicate how he arrived at a penalty of 25%. The penalty imposed at 100% was well below the maximum limit set by S.38 of the EIA. The Commission found no extenuating circumstances and the Court was unable to conclude that the Commission had not exercised its discretionary power in a judicial manner. No basis for the Umpire to interfere with the Commission's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0299.98
Full Text of Decision A-0299.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $7,740 imposed initially but reduced twice by the Commission based on extenuating circumstances. Umpire concluded that the BOR should review the matter once more to either reduce or vary the penalty or to write it off. The FCA held that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that neither the BOR or the Umpire could write-off a penalty or overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0378.98
Full Text of Decision A-0378.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant brought evidence to BOR that she had health problems when false statements were made. BOR upheld the penalty but Umpire, based on FCA decision in Dunham (A-0708.95), decided to reduce it by 50%. The FCA ruled that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty since the Commission and the BOR had exercised their discretion in a judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 45002
Full Text of Decision 45002
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty originally imposed at $462 but after BOR's decision, the Commission reduced it to $231. Mitigating circumstances invoked: real possibility of eviction, husband unemployed, three children involved, minimal hours of work and payments received a month later. Umpire not impressed by the compassion and mercy shown by the Commission. A penalty is meant to punish but not to destroy. Reduction of the penalty down to $150 or even down to $100 suggested by Umpire.
Decision 45255
Full Text of Decision 45255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0549.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 42402A
Full Text of Decision 42402A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The automatic imposition of a 100% penalty where there are "no extenuating circumstances" is not the exercise of a judicious discretion. Umpire recognizes that there should be some uniformity in the penalties imposed and that the Commission is entitled to due deference in its imposition of penalties. Ruled however that unless the Commission is prepared to say why it automatically imposes a 100% penalty in every case of "no extenuating circumstances", then it is not acting judiciously but arbitrarily. Penalty reduced to 25%. Commission appeal to the FCA is pending.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0180.98
Full Text of Decision A-0180.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision A-0181.98
Full Text of Decision A-0181.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision A-0184.98
Full Text of Decision A-0184.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision A-0186.98
Full Text of Decision A-0186.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Should an administrative penalty be proportional to the penalty assessed against the employer in criminal proceedings? Not according to the FCA, for various reasons: administrative delays, the effect of a very punitive criminal sanction in undesirably increasing the administrative penalty, difficulty in quantifying the stigma of a criminal conviction. The FCA also notes, referring to C. Lai (A-525-97), that it is not desirable to import principles applicable to the criminal context into the administrative context.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision A-0182.98
Full Text of Decision A-0182.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Jean-Guy Turcotte (A-0186.98). See summary indexed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 39700A
Full Text of Decision 39700A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant was operating an escort service. She didn't declare her earnings as she needed the money to support her drug addiction. Umpire ruled that under the circumstances the penalty should be forgiven on compassionate grounds.
Decision A-0743.97
Full Text of Decision A-0743.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $3, 120 reduced to $156 by Umpire. Held by FCA that a BOR or an Umpire may not intervene and substitute their appreciation as to the amount to be assessed to a penalty unless it is clear to them that the Commission has exercised its discretion "unjudicially". No evidence on file to lead to such a conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0525.97
Full Text of Decision A-0525.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Decision A-0846.97
Full Text of Decision A-0846.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
False Record of Employment (banking of hours) submitted by the claimant in order to obtain a higher rate of benefit. Penalty imposed at 300%. Earnings were also not reported one week; penalty imposed at 200%. In light of the decisions in Morin (A-453-95 and A-681-96), Dunham (A-708-95), Stark (A-701-96) and Turgeon (A-715-95), the Umpire refused to intervene in the amount of the penalties. The FCA, recognizing that the penalties imposed are not all of the same severity, assumed that the Commission had considered them case by case and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0847.97
Full Text of Decision A-0847.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0845.97
Full Text of Decision A-0845.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0857.97
Full Text of Decision A-0857.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0858.97
Full Text of Decision A-0858.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0823.97
Full Text of Decision A-0823.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty amount maintained by the BOR because of the claimant’s admission of an error "that he did not think it was all that serious" and the fact that the terms used in the report cards are simple, clear and straightforward. The Umpire decided that it is impossible to determine whether the Commission exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that there is sufficient evidence in the file indicating extenuating circumstances to send the case back to the BOR. The FCA ruled that the very brief but sufficient analysis by the BOR shows that this body considered both the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission and the opportunity to reduce the penalty. There is no need to sent the case back to the BOR and the Umpire’s decision is reversed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 40975
Full Text of Decision 40975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed on employer for having made five false statements. The family business was having major financial problems, so the family members agreed to have their wages suspended but continued to carry out their usual duties while receiving benefits. Umpire held that the reason for submitting false records of employment was a shortage of capital rather than a lack of employment. It was therefore found that false statements had indeed been made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
imposed to employer |
|
|
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision A-0639.97
Full Text of Decision A-0639.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $5,200.00 imposed at the rate of 200% for making 20 false statements. Possibility of reducing the amount not considered by BOR (position dating from before Morin, A-453-95). Situation recognized by the Umpire who, even in light of the Morin decision, found that a reduction in the penalty was not justified in this case. FCA refused to intervene, ruling that it was satisfied the Umpire had taken into consideration all the aggravating and extenuating circumstances that appear in the file.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 40390
Full Text of Decision 40390
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 40391
Full Text of Decision 40391
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reason for separation |
|
|
Decision 40389
Full Text of Decision 40389
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 40384
Full Text of Decision 40384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 40387
Full Text of Decision 40387
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0186.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 39997
Full Text of Decision 39997
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0378.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 37691A
Full Text of Decision 37691A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0299.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0734.96
Full Text of Decision A-0734.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant was having a great deal of personal difficulty at the time he claimed benefits. He left however the filling in of the cards to his wife and he signed them without checking the dates. Not reading cards before signing them is not a reasonable explanation for the false statements having been made to the Commission. False statements upheld but amount of penalty reduced by Umpire. Decision confirmed by FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
cards signed by third party |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 38743
Full Text of Decision 38743
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0743.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0681.96
Full Text of Decision A-0681.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The Umpire acknowledged certain extenuating circumstances on the record, namely the claimant’s health status and more particularly her memory losses caused by the morphine medication, and reduced the penalty from $1,690 to $845. The FCA found that it would have been desirable for the Umpire to rule clearly, in the first place, on the legality of the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission before determining the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court inferred from the Umpire’s two decisions that he had carried out this step and had thus not erred in reducing the penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0701.96
Full Text of Decision A-0701.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The BOR recognized some mitigating factors (penalty greater than the penalty amount imposed on the respondent's employer and claimant's financial hardship) but did not reduce the amount of penalty because it believed it lacked authority to do so. Amount reduced by Umpire. The FCA held that there was no "decision or order" made by the BOR that could be reviewed by the Umpire. The Court, referring to its previous decisions in Morin (A-453-95), Dunham (A-708-95) and Mucciarone (A-464-96), allowed the Commission's appeal and ordered that the case be remitted back to the BOR for determination of the amount of penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 37891
Full Text of Decision 37891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0525.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0715.95
Full Text of Decision A-0715.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to having knowingly made false statements, but argued in his defence that he did not want to reveal the «banking» systgem to which his employer had forced him to belong; otherwise, he would have lost his chances for re-employment with that employer. This argument was rejected by the Court. The conditions in which the statements were made might have value as extenuating circumstances for the purposes of assessing the penalty, but this is a matter in which the Commission or the BOR is authorized to rule.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 28068A
Full Text of Decision 28068A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0681.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision 55073
Full Text of Decision 55073
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $16,520 (200% of the overpayment) imposed. The BOR refused to interfere. Umpire found that there was no indication of what factors were considered in fixing the amount of the penalty, except for the fact that it constituted a second infraction by the claimant. The Commission has the responsibility to inquire in all factors relevant in fixing the penalty, including a claimant's ability to pay. Matter returned to a new BOR to determine if the Commission has exercised its discretion judicially.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0525.97
Full Text of Decision A-0525.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0639.97
Full Text of Decision A-0639.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $5,200.00 imposed at the rate of 200% for making 20 false statements. Possibility of reducing the amount not considered by BOR (position dating from before Morin, A-453-95). Situation recognized by the Umpire who, even in light of the Morin decision, found that a reduction in the penalty was not justified in this case. FCA refused to intervene, ruling that it was satisfied the Umpire had taken into consideration all the aggravating and extenuating circumstances that appear in the file.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 37891
Full Text of Decision 37891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0525.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0238.96
Full Text of Decision A-0238.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
First penalty imposed in December 1992 at 100% for weeks from 28-06-92 to 19-07-92. A further audit was conducted during the early part of 1993 and a second penalty was imposed at 200% for other weeks (some prior and some after the previous period) in 1992. Second penalty reduced at 100% by Umpire who considered it as an ongoing offence. Decision reversed by FCA who considered that Umpire had exceeded his jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0244.96
Full Text of Decision A-0244.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $ 5589.00 for 23 false statements. Claimant erroneously notified of 1 false statement instead of 23. Umpire concluded that Commission had exceeded its authority and allowed the appeal rather than modifying the penalty amount. FCA concludes that Umpire failed to exercise his jurisdiction. Matter referred back to him or to the BOR to fix the penalty on the basis that the claimant made 1 false statement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
notice of decision |
|
|
Decision 27928
Full Text of Decision 27928
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Summary:
It is the position of counsel for claimant that this offense should be considered a continuing offense to that in which the appeal was abandoned and the claimant paid a penalty of 100 percent. The Board's findings were reasonable and were not made in a perverse or capricious manner.
