| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
weight |
Summary:
Penalty assessed for 16 false or misleading statements that claimant made in not declaring he had been at university between 27-09-93 and 30-04-94. Claimant stated before BOR that he had not taken any courses between September 1993 and March 1994. BOR accordingly reduced the number of false statements to 8 from 16, thereby reducing the amount of the penalty. Penalty upheld by Umpire. FCA overturned the ruling on the assessment of the penalty. Court concluded that, contrary to what the Umpire and BOR believed, there was no inconsistency between the documentary evidence from the university showing that the claimant had been registered as a full-time student for the 1994 winter semester, and the claimant's assertion that he had taken no courses.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
penalties |
courses of study |
Summary:
Penalty assessed for 16 false or misleading statements that claimant made in not declaring he had been at university between 27-09-93 and 30-04-94. Claimant stated before BOR that he had not taken any courses between September 1993 and March 1994. BOR accordingly reduced the number of false statements to 8 from 16, thereby reducing the amount of the penalty. Penalty upheld by Umpire. FCA overturned the ruling on the assessment of the penalty. ICourt concluded that, contrary to what the Umpire and BOR believed, there was no inconsistency between the documentary evidence from the university showing that the claimant had been registered as a full-time student for the 1994 winter semester, and the claimant's assertion that he had taken no courses.
