| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
outside of canada |
|
|
Summary:
The issue under appeal in this case is whether the imposition of a penalty under section 38 of the EIA, for knowingly making a false or misleading statement, was justified. In this case, the claimant, who had been receiving benefits, travelled outside Canada and answered "no" in her reports to the question: Were you outside Canada during the period of this report? The Commission wrote to the claimant to notify her that a penalty had been imposed for knowingly making misrepresentations. The BOR unanimously dismissed the appeal. The claimant is now appeling from the decision to the Umpire, claiming that the BOR based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact. The decision of the BOR is completely reasonable and there is no reason for the Umpire to intervene. The appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.
