| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
Summary:
The case law clearly holds that the claimant must meet three conditions in order to have had an interruption of earnings: 1) be laid off or no longer employed by the employer; 2) not have worked for that employer for seven consecutive days; 3) not have received earnings during that period, except for earnings provided for under section 58(12) of the Regulations. In this case, the claimant did not meet the first condition. He did not cease being employed by the company since he was its administrator and oversaw its operations throughout the year.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was president and minority shareholder of a seasonal business. He believed in good faith that since he was not receiving any earnings, there had been an interruption of earnings. He repeated this error for four years. Penalties imposed for having made four representations that the claimant knew were false or misleading. Umpire cancelled the penalties because, in his view, on the issue of whether the claimant was ignorant of the law, his mental condition was clearly inadequate to knowingly make a false statement.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Summary:
The case law clearly holds that the claimant must meet three conditions in order to have had an interruption of earnings: 1) be laid off or no longer employed by the employer; 2) not have worked for that employer for seven consecutive days; 3) not have received earnings during that period, except for earnings provided for under section 58(12) of the Regulations. In this case, the claimant did not meet the first condition. He did not cease being employed by the company since he was its administrator and oversaw its operations throughout the year.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
Summary:
Claimant was president and minority shareholder of a seasonal business. He believed in good faith that since he was not receiving any earnings, there had been an interruption of earnings. He repeated this error for four years. Penalties imposed for having made four representations that the claimant knew were false or misleading. Umpire cancelled the penalties because, in his view, on the issue of whether the claimant was ignorant of the law, his mental condition was clearly inadequate to knowingly make a false statement.
