| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The evidence shows that the claimant had been advised that he could have income equivalent to 25% of the benefits he received without such income having any impact on his right to receive those benefits, and that he was justified in believing that his income would not exceed that limit. Umpire found that the claimant was justified in declaring that he was not working at the time he filled out his cards, and that he had not “knowingly” made false or misleading statements. Umpire held that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in not regarding the claimant’s explanations as reasonable and in not making any reference to those explanations in its decision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
Summary:
The evidence shows that the claimant had been advised that he could have income equivalent to 25% of the benefits he received without such income having any impact on his right to receive those benefits, and that he was justified in believing that his income would not exceed that limit. Umpire found that the claimant was justified in declaring that he was not working at the time he filled out his cards, and that he had not “knowingly” made false or misleading statements. Umpire held that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in not regarding the claimant’s explanations as reasonable and in not making any reference to those explanations in its decision.
