Summary of Issue: Cards Signed By Third Party

Decision A0231.08 Full Text of Decision A0231.08

The claimant had been incarcerated and had continued to receive his benefits during his periods of incarceration. He suspected that his girlfriend, who was the mother of his child and who had cohabi ted with him prior to his arrest, had phoned in his report and had accessed his bank account to withdraw moneys, including his benefits payment from his account, without his knowledge and consent. The claimant had maintained that he had not given his girlfriend any such authorization. The FCA held that the Umpire should have allowed the appeal on the ground that the BOR failed to make findings of fact as to whether a third party fraudulently caused the Commission to make the overpayments and if so, whether the fraud was committed with the claimant's knowledge and consent.

Decision 64235 Full Text of Decision 64235

The claimant knowingly gave his personal and confidential telephone access code to his spouse who did not report his earnings correctly. Criminal charges for fraud had been laid against his spouse by the RCMP. The BOR gave credibility to the claimant's statement that he was unaware of the false reports being filed by his spouse and consequently found that the claimant did not knowingly provide false and misleading information. The Umpire agreed that the claimant was therefore not responsible and concluded that the decision made by the Board was in conformity with the evidence and the law.

Decision 45078A Full Text of Decision 45078A

Claimant signed a power of attorney authorizing his wife to act on his behalf. BOR concluded that the Commission did not question the wife's presumed power of attorney sufficiently and she exceeded her authority. The claimant could not be held responsible for his wife's false representations. Decision overturned by the Umpire. When a person is duly authorized to act on behalf of the claimant, regardless of whether or not the claimant is aware of his representative's actions, he will be held responsible for false or misleading statements given by this person. Reference to CUBs 22309 and 37492.

Decision 41163 Full Text of Decision 41163

Clmt did not declare being out of the country. During her absence, a friend completed her card without her permission. While clmt did not authorize her friend to complete her cards, she did not make an effort to correct the misinformation and was prepared to take the benefit of having the cards completed incorrectly.

Decision A-0734.96 Full Text of Decision A-0734.96

Claimant was having a great deal of personal difficulty at the time he claimed benefits. He left however the filling in of the cards to his wife and he signed them without checking the dates. Not reading cards before signing them is not a reasonable explanation for the false statements having been made to the Commission. False statements upheld but amount of penalty reduced by Umpire. Decision confirmed by FCA.

Decision 35410 Full Text of Decision 35410

Claimant with little education asked his common law spouse to fill in his cards. Decided that insofar as he had entrusted to another person the task of filling in his cards, he assumed responsibility for his behaviour. Inadequate evidence in the file of a false or misleading statement made knowingly.

Decision 29896 Full Text of Decision 29896

Claimant in Florida from January to October 1992. Argues that he has only authorized his former consort to sign and complete his by-weekly statements until the end of February 1992. The claimant cannot rely upon the actions of a third party to account for his false statements. Reference made to CUB 22309.

Decision 27689 Full Text of Decision 27689

The false statement on the report card was made by claimant's mother. She was authorized by him to complete the card. The error is inexcusable despite that claimant's mother attempted justification. CUB 22309 held that false statements made by one appointed by claimant binds the claimant.

Decision 26914 Full Text of Decision 26914

I adopt this passage (CUB 22309 quoted) but it leaves one question to be considered in this case. It is "Was the claimant's wife acting on his behalf?" If she was, the claimant will be liable whether or not he actually knew of her falsehoods.

Decision 26824 Full Text of Decision 26824

Assisted by friends in filing report cards. It is also well established that it is no answer to an allegation of knowingly making false statements for a claimant to say that someone had completed the reporting cards on his behalf, as s. 47 says "a claimant or any person on his behalf".

Decision 24903 Full Text of Decision 24903

The only question here is the matter of the penalty. First he admits that he was out of Canada; secondly, he admits that he instructed his wife to sign the cards with the false statement that he was available for work. This was false, of course, as he was in California and was not available.

Decision 22309 Full Text of Decision 22309

The obvious intent behind this penal provision is to ensure that a claimant remains ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the information being submitted to the Commission, even if it is submitted by a third party on his behalf. Facts accepted by the Board: the false statements were made by claimant's wife without his knowledge; she had been appointed to act on behalf of claimant with respect to UI affairs. S. 33 may apply whether or not claimant is aware that false statements are being communicated on his behalf.

Decision 21553 Full Text of Decision 21553

Report cards and warrants carried a signature that looked like claimant's. He has to prove that they were not signed by him or someone on his behalf. They were mailed from and to the address he had given and they were signed and cashed. Handwriting analysis done.

Decision 18182 Full Text of Decision 18182

The signatures on the cards are not all the same. If the Commission is correct, it was not the claimant who filed some of these cards but was someone else. To meet s.33, the Commission would at least have to demonstrate that these cards were signed "on behalf" of the claimant.

Decision 14936A Full Text of Decision 14936A

He said it was not he but his wife who filled in the cards. This cannot allow him to avoid section 47 which refers to a beneficiary or someone acting on his behalf.