| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits after advising her employer that she would not be available for school year the 2006–2007. Claimant said she was taking an unpaid leave for one year. She stated that as of August 21, 2006, she was devoting between 20 and 30 hours a week to her self-employment business. The claimant’s electronic reports show that she did not report that she was self-employed, and that she was available during the entire period. The claimant also failed to report she had left the country twice while receiving benefits. The Commission properly submits that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. All of the evidence shows that it is largely a matter of credibility. The BOR properly indicated, following the evidence, that the facts in the record clearly show that the claimant could not be unaware that she was on unpaid leave granted by her employer, that she was starting up her business and that she travelled outside Canada and had to report her absences. The claimant’s appeal is therefore dismissed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits after advising her employer that she would not be available for school year the 2006–2007. Claimant said she was taking an unpaid leave for one year. She stated that as of August 21, 2006, she was devoting between 20 and 30 hours a week to her self-employment business. The claimant’s electronic reports show that she did not report that she was self-employed, and that she was available during the entire period. The claimant also failed to report she had left the country twice while receiving benefits. The Commission properly submits that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. All of the evidence shows that it is largely a matter of credibility. The BOR properly indicated, following the evidence, that the facts in the record clearly show that the claimant could not be unaware that she was on unpaid leave granted by her employer, that she was starting up her business and that she travelled outside Canada and had to report her absences. The claimant’s appeal is therefore dismissed by the Umpire.
