| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
availability for work |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed because claimant had wrongly stated that she was available [when spending half of a normal work week in father-in-law's business]. It was not demonstrated that she lacked an honest belief in her availability.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
One must keep in mind that for a penalty to be imposed, claimant must have known the statement to be false. The onus is on Commission to prove that. The Board erred in law when it said claimant did not satisfy the Board she did not knowingly make false statements.
