| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Given the weight of all the evidence, the claimant had to know that in stating that he was not working, he was committing a reprehensible act, i.e., was stating something that was not true. The BOR had made sure that the claimant was able to understand very clearly the questions mentioned on the cards, and the Umpire was justified in not intervening. Application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
reimbursing of an overpayment |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire was wrong to draw a negative inference from the repayment made and to take it as a sign that the claimant knew his previous action to have been reprehensible.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire was wrong to draw a negative inference from the repayment made and to take it as a sign that the claimant knew his previous action to have been reprehensible.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Given the weight of all the evidence, the claimant had to know that in stating that he was not working, he was committing a reprehensible act, i.e., was stating something that was not true. The BOR had made sure that the claimant was able to understand very clearly the questions mentioned on the cards, and the Umpire was justified in not intervening. Application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
