| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
As fo the penalties, the evidence supports the conclusion of the BOR and the Umpire had reason to maintain them. Despite the fact that the Boards' reasons do not explain why the false statements where knowingly made, the evidence demonstrates without question that the claimant knew he did not have a right to benefits when he made the statements.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant's principal argument is that the BOR did not consider the six criteria of subsection 30(3) of the EI Regulations and that the Umpire failed to intervene. The Court was of the view that the Board did not have to consider these criteria since the claimant was engaged in a business to the same extent as his associate who devoted all his time to the business.
